Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sanitationstrikemarker.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Colonelinfo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possible derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for text/2D works in the US FASTILY 08:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 August 5. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adolph-jentsch-stamps.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm unclear on whether this would meet the threshold of originality for copyright. Since that question would apply more broadly, I've asked Commons VPC here: commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Minimalist_art. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites's query on Commons apparently didn't lead to much, but in light of some of the examples on commons:Commons:Threshold of originality#United States I think that this file would be PD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. As in, keep current licensing status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrwsc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image does not need to be restricted in the way it is currently. From the article on the flag itself (emphasis added by me): "Although Namok has since died, the Torres Strait Islander Flag is still subject to copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The copyright was administered by the Island Coordinating Council until 2008, when that body was superseded by the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, which is willing to permit reproductions of the flag that are accurate and that acknowledge Namok as the designer." See Threshold of originality. The template {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} {{pd-textlogo}} is applicable here. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 20:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this image has been the subject of previous discussions at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 51#File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg.3B File:Autriservice.gif.3B File:ASeaCadetsFlag.png.3B File:Boxingkangaroo.svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 21#File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 12#File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg. That the image is still subject to copyright with the requirements means that it is still non-free. There was even an opinion in the 2017 discussion the the image exceeded the dancer's headdress is not an "obvious" simple geometric shape and so {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is not appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can be drawn using only the "line", "curve", and "paint bucket" tools on MSPaint, then it's ineligible for copyright. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 20:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can it though? The curve of the headdress seems a little too advanced for MSPAINT. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this is somehow "non-free", even though the only requirement is an attribution notice to the designer of the flag, then why do we have templates like {{attribution}}? Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 20:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why such tags exist is not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is the copyright notice that exists on the Torres Strait Island Regional Council website. It very clearly says:

We give permission for requests to reproduce the Torres Strait Islander Flag subject only under the following conditions:

• where appropriate, recognition is given to the original designer, the late Mr Bernard Namok
• original PMS colours are used
• permission must be received in writing from us, prior to its use

Note especially the last line. This flag is clearly non-free. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• However, that doesn't matter, as it still doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 20:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. The original reason for nomination here is still invalid - the copyright notice clearly demonstrates restrictions beyond what you claimed and the image is still non-free in Australia. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)re[reply]

User:AussieLegend, I think the legal position is complicated, with no obvious solution. I now admit to being the "lawyer" concerned (my professional reasons for dissociation no longer obtain) and I disclosed my identity to the copyright owners. I am not a specialist in copyright law, nor in US law of any kind, but I will attempt to assess the matter in general terms.

1. I agree that the design is not a simple geometrical shape; so it should not be assumed to come within the non-originality exemption (which to my recollection is set out in US law but is not stated in Australian law).
2. The first step was to seek permission, which was done and there has been no response. That silence might be seen as a waiver of the requirement for permission—an apparent choice not to exercise the right of copyright in this case. On the other hand, there was not actually a request from this publisher, WP; and, for that reason, it might be argued that there was not a valid request and so there could not have been a waiver. WP appears to be fulfilling the stated conditions for permission, but it is up to the copyright owner to decide whether those conditions are fulfilled.
3. Another track might be that, although the request did not come from the publisher, it drew the copyright owner's attention to the fact that WP is using the image. The copyright owner then had an opportunity to object, through this page or at least the article's Talk page. There has been no such objection. That might be seen as constituting a waiver.
4. These arguments do not seem to me to be conclusive. But there is also the factor that this is not simply private property: it is also, by Australian federal law, an official national flag. I would expect a court to rule that permission for use should not be unreasonably refused. Part of the criterion of reasonableness would be that there must have been a reasonable effort to obtain permission. I think that there has been such an effort: however, the effort should have been made by the publisher or by someone appointed to act on the publisher's behalf, and that has not happened.
5. The legal issues may come down to an argument of public interest. Should WP cease to use this image of an Australian national flag until such time as this publisher's management (whoever and wherever they may be) has obtained permission from the copyright owner—given that the copyright owner has been made aware of the use and has not responded? One can also suppose that the copyright owner, or at least somebody in contact with them, will see this conversation or, at any rate, the templated copyright acknowledgement that I have placed on the article's Talk page.
6. That said, if I were the copyright owner I might be reluctant to respond to any request from WP, given the amorphous nature of WP in structure and operation. I could not be very sure what would be done with my permission. Whereas, if I say nothing: my rights remain intact, I do not lose anything economically and my people continue to have good access to their flag. There is, in practice, collaboration between WP and the Torres Strait Island Regional Council.
7. For these reasons, I think that we should continue to use the image, subject to receiving an objection from the copyright owner. Wikiain (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiain: I think you might be misunderstanding AussieLegend's position. It doesn't seem as if he/she is suggesting that the file should be deleted or that Wikipedia should cease to use it, but only that it needs to remain licensed as non-free content and continued to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Wikipedia, unlike Wikimedia Commons, does allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded and used, but the relevant policy regarding such usage is quite restrictive. So, converting the licensing to some form of PD would make it much easier to use the file on Wikipedia. Now, it might be possible for this to be PD in the US only per c:COM:TOO#United States and relicense the file as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, even if it's still considered to be above c:COM:TOO#Australia. This sort of thing is sometimes done with respect to logos, etc. originating in the UK since the UK's TOO is much lower than that of the US. That, however, is sort of a judgement call and I think there should be a consensus to do such a thing before converting the license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I thought I had done that on the article's Talk page and that AussieLegend was saying that this was not enough. But you and I seem to be in agreement in principle; if you are confident about the US position here, and if AussieLegend concurs, please go ahead. You may like to copy for Australian Aboriginal Flag, although there I expect the case for non-originality in US law would be stronger. Wikiain (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the file is licensed as both {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, and these licenses are in conflict with one another. If the file is truly non-free content, it shouldn't be licensed as "PD-inelgible-USonly"; on the other hand, it shouldn't be licensed as non-free content if it's truly "PD-ineligible-USonly". "PD-ineligible-USonly" basically means that the file is can be treated as PD locally on English Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be moved to Commons because the file might not be considered to be PD in its country of origin. "PD-ineligible-USonly" files are not subject to WP:NFCC and don't require non-free use rationales; so such files can essentially be used anywhere locally on English Wikipedia just like any other Commons file. The current conflicting licensing is untenable and will just cause unnecessary confusion, and one or the other needs to be removed. Which one should be removed is something which can be established here in this discussion.

Finally, I'm not sure if I understand the solution your proposing on the that article talk page. Original copyright holder permission is pretty much only needed when the copyright holder or someone else wants to release the file under a free license accepted by Wikipedia or Commons; such permission, however, is not needed for non-free content or PD files. "For Wikipedia-use only" or "for non-commercial use/non-derivative use only" types of permission are not going to be accepted by either Wikipedia or Commons as a "free license"; so, adding the statement you propose to the file's page will not do anything at all and will not make the file easier to use in more articles on Wikipedia. The file will still be considered to be non-free content and therefore still be subject to WP:NFCC, regardless of what quasi-permission statement is added to its talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be misunderstanding AussieLegend's position. . It doesn't seem as if he/she is suggesting that the file should be deleted or that Wikipedia should cease to use it, but only that it needs to remain licensed... @Marchjuly: That is an accurate appraisal. I only came here because Lojbanist was arguing that the image is public domain.

I thought I had done that on the article's Talk page and that AussieLegend was saying that this was not enough. @Wikiain: I never said any such thing. You posted on Talk:Torres Strait Islander Flag which I felt was rather coincidental as this discussion had just started and I had actually posted to WP:AWNB not realising you had posted on the same subject. More coincidentally, at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Torres Strait Islander.png Lojbanist had suggested that I email the copyright owners, which was obviously not necessary as you had written to them. All of those posts occurred at around the same time.

Currently, the file is licensed as both {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, and these licenses are in conflict with one another. - {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} was only added by Lojbanist a short while before this discussion started.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 09:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-free. TOO in Australia is "very low" so that's definitely out of the question. I'm also suspicious of the claim that this is below TOO in the US, so it's better to keep {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} out as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.