Hosta

The VOA is an entity of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which, pursuant to the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, became an "Independent Establishment" (5 U.S.C. § 104). An "Independent Establishment" is a quasi-governmental entity that apparently can generate and hold copyrights. For example, the U.S. Postal Service is also an "independent establishment" (see 39 U.S.C. § 201) which we of course know can and does generate and hold copyrights. The VOA Use Policy sets forth "The content appearing on the VOA News and Information Websites is intended for your personal, noncommercial use only" (emphasis added). This is verbiage that 1) does not appear on any federal site (i.e., one truly subject to 17 U.S.C. § 105) of which I'm aware and 2) would render VOA content unfree for our purposes. Эlcobbola _talk 14:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment if this template is deleted what are your plans for 10k files using it. Delete as well, if this is the only license? If so than they should be added to this DR and their uploaders alerted about this DR. --Jarekt (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a discussion about the template only. Discussion of images here would be unhelpful and inappropriate. Images need to be evaluated based on their individual merits; for example, some may be PD by virtue of publication date and/or failure to comply with copyright formalities. As I assume you're aware since you had some involvement with PD-USGov-Military-Air Force Auxiliary (DR here), deprecated templates are simply replaced with a notice that images need to be re-licensed or nominated for deletion (i.e., we deal with images after the template). Эlcobbola _talk 15:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Nick noted at Undeletion requests, the June 2013 version states that materials are in the public domain. Is this the same as a Flickr user who changes licence at a later date but we still host files that were initially under CCBY2.0? Green Giant (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, impacted files could be re-licensed as {{PD-because}} (i.e., they are PD because the VOA at one point chose to release them as such, which is irrevocable). The template, however, implies that the VOA must release files to the public domain (untrue) or continues to do so (untrue). This is why images currently using the template need to be addressed individually. Эlcobbola _talk 15:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If most of the files with this template are are in the public domain for a different reason (due to a statement which used to be at VOA's web page), then wouldn't it make more sense to instead update the template with the new rationale (PD because posted on VOA's website before some date) and deal with later images separately? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hoped not to be side-tracked by image issues, but it should probably be noted that a number of images using this template are bogus. Consider File:Al-Qaida au Maghreb Islamique combattants.png. VOA is a broadcaster; that its watermark appears in the corner has nothing to do with authorship. Are we really to believe it was a VOA employee snapping photos in the Algerian desert? Consider ESPN - its watermark appears on its broadcasts, yet the footage is typically owned by the sports league. If you'll forgive another US-centric example: w:PBS has broadcast w:Fawlty Towers. A PBS logo in the corner does not mean copyrights have been transferred from the BBC to the American Public Broadcasting Service. Эlcobbola _talk 15:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images with bogus authorship claims should be nominated for deletion, but this is out of scope for this discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: I agree that when a template is deleted than all the files using it have to be relicensed or deleted. I just would like to avoid finding 10k files without a license and no plan on what to do with them, as it happened after deletion of Template:Copyheart (not so many files: 10s not thousands). Also approach with a notice to relicense did not work with {{PD}} which was depreciated in 2008, got the notice but it is still used by many files. But I apologize for this side-discussion, we need to evaluate the template on it's own merits without worrying how much mess that will create. The main point of my suggestion was to alert all the people whose files will be likely deleted based on this discussion, that this discussion is taking place. --Jarekt (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Are images which predate the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act in the public domain per 17 U.S.C. § 105? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep At least as late as June 2013 this template was completely legitimate, as their terms of use indeed stated that their works are in public domain. The most reasonable way would be probably to update the template to state that this work was published on VOA website before some time (1 July 2013?) when it was still in public domain and that this template does not concern works uploaded after the moment when terms of use changed — NickK (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete as a "Independent Establishment" it is not covered by 17 U.S.C. § 105. As an aside 17 U.S.C. § 105 does not place United States Government works into the Public Domain, all it does is stop them from having any protection under 17 U.S.C. in the US. The US Government can and does benefit from copyright protection in other jurisdictions (see here). LGA _talk^edits 22:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Note: See below. LGA _talk^edits 05:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Modify the template to say that it is no longer appropriate for new material, but keep it around since pre-June-2013 uploads were and presumably still are public domain per Jameslwordward's suggestion. --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I looked at many non-US images and find it very unlikely that they were taken by US Government employees, but is someone can convince me that most of them are part of US Governement than I might change my mind. --Jarekt (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This does not seem to be an issue of US Government employees, this seems to be an issue of VOA policy, as they released all their content in public domain. One should not be a US Government employee in order to release his or her works to public domain — NickK (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  O I missed that, The name of the template starts with "PD-USGov". So you are saying that the people are not US government and the template is kind of {{PD-Author}}? --Jarekt (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I believe it should work that way — NickK (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment This is affecting 9737 media files, not easy as deleting just a template, a RfC or something like Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA should hold for it IMO. Some of them can be really considered taken by themselves, like File:Ali reza nouri zadeh.png −ebraminio^talk 08:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Agreeing with as Carnildo. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recapping:

1. Prior to 1998, the VOA was a Federal agency and its works were PD-USGov.
2. After 1998 the VOA was no longer a Federal agency, but until June 2013, it made its works PD voluntarily
3. After June 2013, its works have been NC.

It seems to me that the best solution is to

1.  Keep the existing template, but change its text to allow its use only for pre 1998 images.
2. create a new template, {{PD-VOA-1998-2013}} with appropriate text and change all the images from between those dates
3. DR all VOA images after June 2013.

Is there a tool that can take the list of all images using this template and sort them by date? That won't be definitive, but it would be a start. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Jim, I think your solution of changing the content of {{PD-USGov-VOA}} to apply to images created before 1 October 1999 and introducing a new {{PD-VOA-1999-2013}} template for images created before 1 July 2013 is the right way to solve this problem. To sort them by date you could use VisualFileChange to bulk edit the images in Category:PD VOA using a rule that captures the date from {{Information}} with a regex and (temporarily) adds a tracking category like [[Category:PD:VOA ordered by date|YYYYMMDD]]. —RP88 (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found a VOA press release that confirms that new regulations that changed the long-standing PD policy took effect on 1 July 2013. —RP88 (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Jim's proposal with the recommendation that once the post-98 files are re-licenced with we rename this template {{PD-USGov-VOA (pre 1998)}} and batch change all files that use the old name to avoid confusion. LGA _talk^edits 05:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• But....voacantonese and voachinese still say "美国之音制作的所有文字、声音或图像资料都是公共财产"--KOKUYO (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the material on the two Chinese-language editions of VOA is in the public domain whereas the material on the English-language editions isn't? This is confusing. We should maybe ask VOA for a clarification. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Same for [ukrainian.voanews.com/info/policy/1935.html Ukrainian]: it also says public domain — NickK (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Consensus looks to be against deletion, and rather for adjustment of this template and possible creation of another updated one. Perhaps further discussion at RFC would be helpful. INeverCry 22:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post closing comment. The comments above about the Ukrainian and Chinese sites are correct, but do not affect us. The terms of use at the parent web site for the VOA, www.voanews.com, is very clear that the NC terms there apply to all of the language sites linked to it. We cannot use material from any VOA site dated after June 2013. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed them to confirm with the email provided here: http://www.insidevoa.com/ askvoa@voanews.com Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at my story: User talk:Krassotkin/Archive/2016 Voice of America. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]