Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 July 3 1.1 File:Texaco_No.13.jpg 1.2 File:Charmed-dia-w.png 1.3 File:CD&E_KES.jpg 1.4 File:CD&E_Prozess.jpg 1.5 File:CD&E_Ver.jpg 1.6 File:Scrabble_board_in_play.jpg 1.7 File:Stepanov_RPK-74.jpg 1.8 File:Evgkite.jpg 1.9 File:Ubisoft_logo.png

[edit] July 3

[edit] File:Texaco_No.13.jpg

no evidence of copyright nonrenewal Mangostar (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: the following message was sent to the Purdue University:

Dear Shauna (borger@purdue.edu)

I would like to use two images found in the Purdue University Libraries e-Archives,: 1. Old ID Number xv.c.25, New ID Number b13f12i10 Title: Amelia Earhart and Frank Hawks and 2. Old ID Number xv.c.7, New ID Number, b13f15i13, Title: Pilot Frank Hawks in flight

to illustrate an article on Wikipedia about Frank Hawks. See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Monroe_Hawks>

I am an author and researcher with nine books in publication and 13 films in which I was a technical director or consultant, and intend to use this publicly accessed article as the basis of an a scholarly work in the future, but have had some difficulty in obtaining images for illustration.

Can you release the two aforementioned images through accepting the following: I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=673&CISOBOX=1&REC=1] and [1] .

I agree to publish that work under the free license [2] LICENSE [images: choose at least one from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses text: CC-BY-SA version 3.0].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

Bill ... in my other life, a meek and mild librarian... Zuk <wzuk1@shaw.ca>

The archivist wrote back on July 6, 2009 to confirm that the Purdue Library holds title to the work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

[edit] File:Charmed-dia-w.png

First off, User:Aarchiba/Brookhaven permission should be forwarded to OTRS; however, the wording in the letter are ambiguous and not decidedly in public domain's favor. The conditions specified are to comply with http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/images_legal.html (which has not changed — 2004 version). The terms never declare the images to be in the public domain, and seem to be spelling out terms for "fair use" instead. Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Examples:

• License Granted by BNL: "your reproduction of images is limited to the specific use described in your request to use the image, which together with these terms shall constitute the full license granted."
• No Alterations: "When using such images, you may not make or permit any modifications to or alterations of the images (except for standard color correction or minor cropping for space limitations) or to the caption information unless specifically agreed in writing by BNL."
• Publication Right: "BNL shall exclusively retain all publication rights arising from your use of our images."

The above is just a sprinkling of the restrictions. None stated the images are in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: The email state the file is public domain. The license is for the other images found on the BNL websites.en:User:Headomb

The point is the wording in in the email is ambiguous; the stated license is not for the other images, it applies to the images that were asked for as well: "Below is the information you need to use the photos for your book. ... This permission is applicable only for the single use that you requested. ..." Jappalang (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Approval to http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/images_legal.html means it's not public domain. Hekerui (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment This just shows that commons policy is too restrictive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep because it is a work of the United States federal government and thus ineligible for copyright, and in the email the writer states "While they are considered public domain, we need to be sure that the images are not used for proprietary purposes" she is making clear there are restrictions in addition to the copyright like personality rights or claiming a public domain photo is under your copyright Movieevery (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  It is not a work by the federal government. BNL are government contractors, whose works are copyrighted per "Works created under a federal government contract or grant". See also Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, BNL images and conditions are fair use as they are allowed to: "Whenever the contractor asserts claim to copyright in works other than computer software, the Government, and others acting on its behalf, are granted a license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the copyrighted work." The correspondence in the User page shows a mismatch in understanding of the terms employed. Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  that's not entirely true, BNL is owned by United States Department of Energy, but the research performed is contracted, I guess we would need to know who the photographer was to determine the copyright of the images, but I note that the email response from BNL did claim 'public domain', although they may not fully understand what public domain means. Movieevery (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  Permission tickets are to be unamibiguous in their declaration of licenses and copyrights. If they do not fully understand what public domain is, they cannot release it to that status in good effect. As noted in Commons:OTRS, "forward the e-mail with the author's clear statement of permissions to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org". Also note that "The author must choose one of the licenses permitted at Commons; in particular, restricting use to Wikipedia or Wikimedia projects is not acceptable.", which is what the correspondence with this "Jane Koropsak" has went against. The permission by "Koropsak" is ambiguous and restricted in use. Jappalang (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  The BNL Image Licensing Policy is invalid and unenforceable. Those working at BNL are employees of US DOE, a fact acknowledged by BNL on their Privacy and Security Notice page thus: "There are times when your message is forwarded, as e-mail, to other Department of Energy employees ..." (my emphasis). --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  The DoE manages the website, but as stated the works performed in the BNL can be performed under contract or even under programs.[3][4] Contracted works are copyrighted, but licensed to the government for "free use" as again stated above. Such works are not in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. We have a letter from BNL saying it's public domain, along with the usual gobbledygook trying to impose further restrictions on it, which they can't legally do. There's no evidence to support speculation that the work was performed by a contractor. Eubulides (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Without the email saying the image is in the public domain I would have said no, but the email clearly says the image is in the public domain. The email certainly appears to be official and authentic on its face, and I'm not going to second guess whether or not the BNL person writing the email could have been mistaken about the image being in the public domain. Bluepjs23 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Since 17 July 2009, I have emailed BNL on the status of the images, and this is the reply from their Senior Patent attorney. Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jappalang on Wikimedia,

To clarify, the image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charmed-dia-w.png as obtained from the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) website at http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/history/charmed.asp is available to the public subject to the BNL image policy regarding such things as alteration, unauthorized use, and sensitive subjects. The basis for limitations on use of this image is derived from the fact that BNL is a DOE owned laboratory that is operated by Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC (BSA), a contractor of the U.S. Government under a prime contract providing BSA certain rights. And accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce this image, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.

Best regards,
Dorene

Dorene M. Price, Esq.
Sr. Patent Attorney
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Building 185
Upton, NY 11973-5000
Phone: 631-344-4153
Fax: 631-344-3729
www.bnl.gov/techxfer

• Delete. BNL is not the US Federal Government and the above email clearly indicates that the image is not PD. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Email plus relevance to the article are enough proof that this image must not be deleted. -- DragonFly31, September 15 2009

Relevance to an article does not change a copyright rationale, and the email is vague at best. Hekerui (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The email is not vague. They clearly state that Wikipedia can use the image. We can debate the PD-aspect, but we should not delete the image. --Thorwald (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Both emails on the subject seem quite clear. The image has been specifically released for use on wikipedia, and thus should not be deleted. In any case, this discussion is so absurd that I'll just reupload it immediately. :P September 15 2009
• Keep' If an image is created under a federal contract then it would still be PD. Just as images/art created by NASA contractors is considered PD. A lab running under contract of the U.S. Government means anything it produces is PD. Or so my understanding of that law is. Raeky (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: It is simple, really. Brookhaven National Laboratory is a US government funded institution and, as such, all of its works should be PD. --Thorwald (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  Please tell your congressman. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  That's relevant if the works are considered "works for hire", with their copyright therefore owned by the Government rather then BNL. I would think that should be true, but I suppose it depends on the nature of their contract. --199.246.40.54 17:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: as wet as I get for GNU and the public domain, it is absolutely silly to take down such a relevant image. 128.189.130.176

• Comment Speedy keep, according to their lawyer "U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce this image, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes." Thats right there states it's in the public domain. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  That is not correct. It just means that the Department of Energy can publish this without asking. But it does not mean that anybody has that right. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CD&E_KES.jpg

PD-GermanGov dosn't apply here. Its almost only for law texts. Avron (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Avron,

da ich dem Zentrum für Transformation der Bundeswehr angehöre und die Bundeswehr eine Einrichtung des Bundes ist, nahm ich an, dass alles was ich einstelle auch unter die GermanGov gehört. Falls dies nicht der Fall sein sollte, bitte ich um Verbesserung, da ich mich nicht so detailliert mit Urheber und anderern Sachen auseinandergesetzt habe. Meine Vorgesetzte Dienststelle hat alle verwendeten Images frei gegeben, so dass sie eigentlich durch jeden zu benutzen sind.

Das kann schon sein, doch unter Paragraph 5 des Urhebergesetzes [5] fallen diese Folien kaum. Wenn du der Autor bist, dann könntest du diese unter GFDL oder CC-Lizenz stellen. Ansonsten bleibt der Weg über Commons:OTRS--Avron (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep PD-self is fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CD&E_Prozess.jpg

PD-GermanGov dosn't apply here. Its almost only for law texts. Avron (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per author's reply; please make a mass DR for cases like these. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CD&E_Ver.jpg

PD-GermanGov dosn't apply here. Its almost only for law texts. Avron (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per author's reply; please make a mass DR for cases like these. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Scrabble_board_in_play.jpg

Derivative work ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment See http://home.teleport.com/~stevena/scrabble/legal/issues.html (especially "Books on Scrabble") - it seems the whole category will have to go if I understand the legal stuff correctly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep No threshold of originality, only text and shapes. But there is one cover in this cat: File:Juniorscrabble Grieks.jpg I wonder who gave the permission ...--Avron (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I can't believe.[6] Rocket000 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Evgkite.jpg

The original source w:en:File:Evgkite.jpg (see the upload log from nl.wikipedia) was deleted as replacable fair use. I dont know whether the deletion reason is correct or not. The image is roughly sourced to http://www.sfwmd.gov, but who the creator is or a deeper source is not specified. Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ubisoft_logo.png

This is not a screenshot. I doubt the licence includes the company logo Belgrano (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, in every game (at least the recent ones from the Prince of Persia series) this logo is shown in the very start of it, just as most videogames. This last version isn't a screenshot indeed (the one that was edited with added transparency), but the only difference from this one and a screenshot is the quality. I think that the best solution is to revert to its original version OR replace it with a real screenshot. Sorry for any trouble. Regards, Mr.Yah! ^msg 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep As Ya said, Ubisoft uses their logo on it's games start screen. Would be the same thing if he had taken the screenshot and took it's background off. And the logo is simple enousgh. A circle with gradient color and a simples text. Note: Per the United States Copyright Office: "familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... typeface as typefaced are not subject to copyright. Also see Image_casebook Trademarks. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment First of all, it would be best not mixing licences. Either it falls under the simple logo thing ; or it falls under Ubisoft agreement. On the latter : Ubi agreement may allow screenshots, it does not allow anything. I remember screenshots of Naruto characters taken on Ubi games which were deleted : Ubi had the right to use their design, we to take screenshots of Ubi game, yet we could not have free pictures of those characters, as the copyright was not held by Ubi. So it is not obvious that shooting the logo off the game makes the logo free.

Second, we just can't have stuff like "It would be the same if". Start like this, and we end up like "I did not take this picture, but I could have, so let's upload it". It just doesn't make sense. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ubisoft act as third-party in Naruto's case. Though Ubisoft develops Naruto's games the cipoyright belong primarly to Aniplex. In many cases Ubisoft just publish games like Soulcalibur tha belongs to Namco. In cases like that we must analyze well who are really the copyright owners. Ubisoft allowed screenshots of their games so I can take a screenhsot of a single character in the game and upload here. Ubisoft didn't restricted anything like that, either it said we must use our own screenshots. IF we were aloowed to use only our own screenshots, how could br proved they were taken by ourselves? And the logo is simple so keep it anyway.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete I dont think the logo is simple enough to evade copyright Corpx (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Question: when applied to videogames, does the term "screenshot" refer to screenshots taken during gameplay, or to any screenshots taken anytime during the software execution? Usually videogames start with small movies of logos and advertisments, an opening movie for the videogame itself, and then the main interface. Are those logos and advertisments at the begining considered part of the game? I would though that they were not, but I may be mistaken Belgrano (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a question nobody wants to answer, as it might rule out many screenshots : opening movie, title screen, menues, cut-scenes, included making-of... Jean-Fred (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that any kind of screenshot is a fair use thing, and unsuitable for commons. Corpx (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Right in most cases, except when the software is delivered under a free licence. Then screenshots are free. The question here is whenever this freedom reachs the logo: in mozilla firefox it does not, and in wikipedia or commons it does not. Belgrano (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright holders (ie editors) have the right to release screenshots under a free licence. In this case, Ubisoft gave us permission (well, kind of) : {{Attribution-Ubisoft}}. Jean-Fred (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt they want to allow "Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use" for their logo. That kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a logo if anyone can copy and use it Corpx (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing being licensed is the copyright -- trademark rights are still fully retained, which are stronger (and more applicable) for logos anyways. They are meant to be copied and used in appropriate places. If kept, the image should be tagged with {{trademarked}}. That said, using the Ubisoft screenshot license for an image which is *just* the logo feels like it is a bit of a stretch. But, it may still technically apply (and the copyright would be owned by Ubisoft, even if the rest of the game was not, which as mentioned may be an issue with other screenshots). In the U.S., I think this would easily qualify for copyright, so the Ubisoft license is the only way it could be allowed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)