Commons:Deletion requests/File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:2008_Top1percentUSA.png[edit]

Potentially a copy of http://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/top-percent-share-of-total-pre-tax-income.png?4c9b33 ; not speedy because it could have been reconstructed from public data Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 00:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Data was publicly released and available on the website when I created the original chart in Nov 2008, looking now its still available here. In the end it is government data, and is copyright free. - RoyBoy (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per rationale directly above this message from user:RoyBoy. The information appears to be free of copyright. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is the uploader one of the authors of the paper referred to above? If so, it's his work, and he can choose to release it under CC-by-SA, and I should withdraw the request. If not, he needs to point to the original data. For example, in the 1980s, a dependent could have a dependent, so the definition of "family" which the authors use would not have been reported by the IRS. Applying the statistics to "taxpayers" may produce a different result than their claimed application to "families". Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 07:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the study they specify "IRS micro-files" were used for the 1966-1999 period, and IRS tables for 1916-1965. If deemed necessary, I can recontact Emmanuel Saez (I inquired about updates in 2008) and explicitly ask his permission. In answer to the question of taxpayers, the study uses the broader term "tax units":

    • computed using census data on the marital structure of the population: it is defined as the sum of the total number of married men; the total number of widowed and divorced men and women; and the total number of single men and women aged 20 or over.

    • It is of interest that this should not be "confused with the actual number of tax returns filed". - RoyBoy (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to withdraw the nomination, but that seems to make some sense. However, it doesn't completely make sense, as a "tax unit" could have zero (of course, as noted above), one or two (MFS = Married Filing Separate) returns. There's a potential error in calculating the percentiles, even if we assume that a tax unit which doesn't need to file one or more tax returns would would be in the lower percentiles of income. I don't know if the IRS statistics recombine MFS returns, although they could, at least since 1965, as the spouse's SSN is required on an MFS return. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 03:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The image has a number of problems. First of which is the claim that it is the authors own work which constitutes original research by making factual claims with no references and the image may also have a copyright claim by the site mentioned above.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To play devil's advocate, images are allowed to have original research; that only affects their usability on sites such as en.Wikipedia which do not allow original research. Other Wikipedias may not have that problem. However, the copyright problem is not really dealt with; the paper from which the image is taken describes how the authors selected the data that go into it, but that selection seems to me to be impossible from the data actually provided (to and by) the IRS. Census data may provide such information, but that's only every 5 or 10 years. If the uploader can provide pointers to the information used to generate this graph, and that information is clearly public domain, then the graph would be. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly available information? That does not mean the information is free to use. You admit in your first post here that the data was taken from a University of Berkeley paper. They are copyright protected and NOT government documents.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you want me to ask then? - RoyBoy (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should point out the update version has no copyrights, it acknowledges McArthur Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and NSF Grant SES-0134946; and the raw data points are given in an Excel sheet, with no copyrights listed. - RoyBoy (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really good enough. Since 1978 (or possibly earlier), a copyright notice is no longer needed. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 07:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood. I went ahead and e-mailed the source last night, he replied today it was free to use, I will update the description. Should I forward this to anyone specifically? - RoyBoy (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm actually not sure about Commons licensing, but Wikipedia requires that the grant must be at least CC-by-SA, which includes allowing alteration of the material. On Wikipedia, I'd request an w:WP:OTRS report as to the precise content of the license release, as OTRS would also verify the identity of the poster. Yep, it's the same here: Commons:OTRS. It would be simpler if you requested that Saez contact OTRS directly, giving the specific license he's releasing the image under. The E-mail address is reported to be permissions-commonswikimedia.org , but I've never requested OTRS review, myself. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 14:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, I forgot what it was called. I forwarded the information / e-mail to Commons:OTRS, while I do now see the need to cover our bases regarding the data source (given 2003 publication), the image remains my work; and the data will hopefully be cleared shortly. - RoyBoy (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The United States does not allow copyright to be applied to facts, especially data. There is no concept of database rights in the United States. The underling values for the graph are not copyrightable. – Adrignola talk 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The graph is clearly his own work. The accuracy of the data has nothing to do with copyright in this case. USchick (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. theres no clear, compelling reason to delete. 69.107.108.192 03:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (to some others of the "keep" votes) If his graph's data is taken from their graph's data, then there's a derivative copyright. The data in the graph, possibly generated from public-domain data in a creative manner, may be subject also to a derivative copyright. In the US, the Feist case leaves open how much creativity is needed. The Wikipedia article paraphrases O'Connor's decision to include "the creative choice of what data to include or exclude" as being sufficient to add copyright. (I could look up the actual decision, but I'm lazy.) In this case, as noted in the second comment below, the choice of "tax units", and the decision of how to combine MFJ returns with individual returns, may have the minimum creativity required. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 13:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (to most "keep" votes) We don't know exactly how the data was generated. There could be adequate creativity in the selection of "tax units" to make the data (derived from that) subject to copyright. Furthermore, although only relevant to use, a "tax unit" can file 0, 1, or 2 tax returns, so the definition of percentile in the paper is comparing apples to oranges (or perhaps pears), in comparing "tax units" estimated from census data to tax returns reported to the IRS. One would have to check the methodology in detail to determine whether (1) there is a systematic error in the graph (which could be recovered by removing the grid lines), or (2) a systematic effect on the percentage of men who are married on the graph (which could not easily be recovered). Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This sounds like a case for the Supreme Court. Until it's decided there, since we're talking about a graphic created using public information, there is no Commons policy against it. USchick (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The print in the graph is slightly fuzzy, which makes it more difficult for users to read, particularly for sight-impaired users. It appears to be based upon empirical facts, which can't be copyrighted. Perhaps an editor can create a facsimile of this version that has clearer printing of the wording within it. -Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - no copyright problem; in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Facts can not be copyrighted, only their presentation. It does not matter where the data came from. RoyBoy created the chart, and RoyBoy released it under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} --Timeshifter (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Data is not copyrightable. Yann (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2008_Top1percentUSA.png&oldid=62794745"