Reach a decision about whether 2D artworks should have a SDC copyright statement

[baskaufs]

From my email 2022-08-22 to Sandra Fauconnier:

1. In the “The wikitext” section of “Faithful representation ('digital surrogate') of an artwork; the artwork is notable and has a Wikidata item”, the page says “Make sure that this license template corresponds with the copyright and license information specified in the structured data. This data is (per July 2022) not yet automatically pre-filled from structured data.” This is somewhat confusing, does there need to be copyright and licensing information in the structured data if the PD-Art template is used? The PD-Art template provides text for humans: “The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that ‘faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain’.” The examples omit copyright and licensing in their structured data and I was assuming because it was unnecessary give that it’s a faithful reproduction. But I’m not sure.

I suppose an alternative would be to use a copyright value of Q19652 (public domain) with a qualifier of Q61005058 (ineligible for copyright protection). Would a license claim be necessary in this case? The examples don’t include the copyright and licensing statements in the Structured data column.

It seems like the most important Structured data statement for this type of 2D work would be the P6243 claim that it’s a digital representation of artwork and that might eliminate the need for a copyright claim. But I’m not sure.

[baskaufs]

Since this would require hacking the Commonsbot code to handle qualifiers, I'm not wild about this. Nothing gets flagged and I haven't gotten any response from Sandra, so for now this will just have to vegetate.

[baskaufs]

Although CommonsTool now handles qualifiers, this doesn't seem important, so I'm closing it.