Template talk:PD-GallicaScan

Link broken

The direct link is broken: «La ressource demandée (/scripts/ConsultationTout.exe) n'est pas disponible.» --Nemo 08:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the BNF has changed its system, and old links are broken. I don't know how to correct that. Yann (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I corrected it. Yann (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Link broken (II)

This template is out-dated. It forces the user to search for the Gallica scan in the old Gallica library (visualiseur.bnf.fr), whereas Gallica offers a more practical service: the gallica.bnf.fr ebook-based system, which directly provides the user with a permalink. The template should be adaptated so as to allow users to specify either the first or the second system when editing the template:

• {{PD-GallicaScan|1=03100059}} for the old visualizing system (gallery-based)
• {{PD-GallicaScan|2=http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5655640z.image.f121.pagination}} for the new visualizing system (ebook-based)

Also, if someone would mind changing the skin of this template... (removing the ugly blue-dotted gray field usually used for displaying pre-formatted text with <pre> tag.) Best regards, Tachymètre (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tachymètre. Please update the template so that a direct link to the pages can be provided. Badzil (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that currently the best way is {{ARK-BNF}}. --Nemo 08:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We reviewed all BnF/Gallica related templates when working on the BnF cooperation project. Our thoughts were that this template was a very bad idea, because it mixes two unrelated things : source and license. Those files are PD because of {{PD-scan}}, not because they come from Gallica (this really is not a PD-guarantee, you can trust me on that). I really do not see why we mix these two things (as in truth we do have two different fields in {{Information}}).

As Nemo said, {{ARK-BNF}} is the way forward, as it makes use of the permalinks built by the BnF

In my opinion, we should deprecate this template, and use {{PD-Scan}} for License. As for Source, two solutions :

• Using simply {{ARK-BNF}}.
• Building a new fancy tag template, which would make use of {{ARK-BNF}} and would categorise as well.

Jean-Fred (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I did not know about that. Someone should update the page of the template explaining the issue and that another template has to be used. I will correct the pages where I used it. Regards. Badzil (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

License template?

I do not think this template should be used as a license template. It is like cross of {{PD-scan}} and source template: it says that it is a scan of PD work so scanning did not add additional copyrights, but it does not say why the image is PD in the first place. I think it should be used with templates like {{PD-old-100-1923}}. --Jarekt (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Moreover, it has been shown that non-PD files can be found on Gallica from times to times, which kinda void this template. I have been meaning to deprecate it for years now but never got to do it. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

May be we can create GallicaScan source template {{GallicaScan}} and replace "{{PD-GallicaScan|id}}" with "{{GallicaScan|id}}{{PD-scan|PD-old-1923}}" or "{{GallicaScan|id}}{{PD-scan|PD-old-100-1923}}" when we can figure out author's death date. --Jarekt (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

> ... when we can figure out author's death date ...

And don't forget to enable PD-status for images only due to creation-year (although authors death date is unknown)

e.g. an image from 1800 today should always be PD

• Jaybear • ...disc. • 13:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be usefull to insert a waiver in the template, explaining that reuse for commercial purpose is subject to fees ? Wathever in the public domain, Gallica requires paiement of fees for such an use, according french law see Article 15, as stated in the commercial use licence page. Financial95 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Quel charabia. Les points sont très simples : BNF website says Non-commercial use of documents is open and free of charge in accordance with the legislation in force, especially the maintenance of the source of the document: BnF or Bibliothèque nationale de France.

* Si une image scannée se trouve sur Gallica, c'est donc qu'elle est libre d'être reproduite bien évidement dans un but non commercial (PUBLIC SERVICE : en France, il est gratuit !), sinon elle ne l'est pas du tout, il faut la commander sur place ;

* Certaines images comportent une dimension artistique qui semblent encore couvertes par le droit d'auteur ;

* C'est donc que Gallica-BNF a mis en ligne de telles images, les élevant à la dimension du domaine public suite à des négociations en amont avec les ayant-droits supposés : aucune image n'est en ligne sur Gallica si de tels accords n'existent pas !

C'est tout, --Spiessens (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page.
Administrators/template editors: Please apply <nowiki> or {{Tl}} to the tag after the request is fulfilled.

---

Fulfill this request after checking that the code is safe

Rosenzweig

Actually, I'd rather just have the permissions granted to fix this myself—cf. edit history and duration w/r/t trustworthiness—but the commenters at the Village Pump only pointed out this mechanism so far. See here and here for details, but—even if we're not going to wait for the necessary bots to fix the ensuing mess—the last edit from Rz needs to have its phrasing changed to neutrally state that the template has been depreciated and should be replaced with PD-Old etc. without begging for the wholesale deletion of 1.4m works and images almost entirely well within the public domain. — LlywelynII 05:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose, for now. Just wait for the outcome of the discussion at COM:VPC you already linked above. --Rosenzweig τ 05:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)