Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 20

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polio victim.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• {{PD-US-not renewed}} demands evidence of pre-1964 publication. Such evidence is currently not present. Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lilian Bland.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source is from 2010. Evidence of pre-1923 publication missing. Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took me approximately 5 seconds to confirm that the image in question was published long ago. Perhaps you might want to script a Google Image Search into your posting procedures? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's highly possible that this was published in 1910, though I have been unable to confirm this. Does anyone have access to "Miss Lilian Bland Flies", Flight, 10 September 1910? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that doesn't have any images. However, Flight published loads of images of Bland. It's possible that this was published at the same time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication in 1964 doesn't guarantee that it is in the public domain. The website doesn't have the entire magazine, so it is not possible for me to check whether the magazine contains a copyright notice or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 determined about copyright status. There are good points on both sides of the discussion. Further discussion should potentially include WMF legal team or other expert copyright opinion. -- TLSuda (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hscbefore.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This was tagged with {{subst:npd}} by User:Sfan00 IMG but User:Jmh649 removed the tag stating that "it is in the public domain as taken in the USA, not copyrightable". However, the user didn't provide any evidence that this statement is true, and it seems to contradict current practice of the United States Copyright Office. See for example:
• VAu000017176: "X-ray depiction of human hand with index finger protruding upward."
• VAu000017175: "X-ray depiction of human head with thumb in mouth."
• VAu000017174: "X-ray depiction of human hands bound by handcuffs."
• VAu000017688: "X-ray view of human head & shoulders."

It is probable that some x-rays are in the public domain, but USCO practice indicates that some x-rays are copyrightable. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this specific x-ray is sufficiently simple. Stefan2 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's describe those just a little more completely:

• VAu000017176: "X-ray depiction of human hand with index finger protruding upward."—X-ray artwork registered by X-Ray Art, Inc.; title of the artwork is "Salute".
• VAu000017175: "X-ray depiction of human head with thumb in mouth."—X-ray artwork registered by X-Ray Art, Inc.; title of the artwork is "Orafix".
• VAu000017174: "X-ray depiction of human hands bound by handcuffs."—X-ray artwork registered by X-Ray Art, Inc.; title of the artwork is "Call My Lawyer".
• VAu000017688: "X-ray view of human head & shoulders."—X-ray artwork registered by X-Ray Art, Inc.; title of the artwork is "Skin Deep".

Exactly zero of these are medical diagnostic images. These are all deliberately created works of fine art that happen to use X-rays as the medium. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I overlooked that. What about VAu001014144 below? The descriptions sound very similar to this kind of image. The descriptions sound very similar to this image. Also, many of the images at http://www.anatomicaljustice.com/ (the copyright holder to VAu001014144) look comparable to this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's a website that sells "Stock and Custom Medical Art, Medical Illustrations from our vast database of medical art, medical animation, and interactive media", then I don't see any reason why we should consider them to be any different from any other stock photo agency, except that this one also takes information from attorneys and turns it into presentations, timelines, and the like. (They will also do website design for you, but judging from the number of deadlinks and SQL errors on their website, they're not very good at it). The fact that people make complex graphical presentations that include some medical diagnostic images (in their case, for money apparently paid mostly by personal injury attorneys) doesn't tell you anything at all about the medical diagnostic images that might be included in such presentations.

Or, to be more blunt, you actually have no idea if this art business is claiming copyright on medical diagnostic images (images that it would be illegal for them to make, unless the artist just happened to also be licensed as a rad technician), because descriptions like "Joyce DeMarco - Conditions from 2/9/05 - 2/18/05" don't tell you if any medical diagnostic images are included, much less if those medical diagnostic images were created by the person claiming the copyright, rather than any images being incorporated into a larger, copyrightable presentation. The word "X-ray" doesn't appear anywhere in that record, and the artist filed a claim as being "2-d artwork". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images may be highly artistic and not diagnostic images, but I note examples such as "Kalliope Sarrinikolaou - MRI of the Cervical Spine, 2/6/08" and "Christopher Diaz - CT Scan of the Orbital Bones and Traumatic Injuries, 4/23/04" which do suggest that some of the images are medical images. Also, the registration suggests that all of the examples are copyrighted according to the copyright office. See also for example VAu001095217 which includes images such as "Carrie Jefferson - Left Lateral Knee X-Ray: 5/30/06". --Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that an x-ray machine is just another form of camera - not sure why it would be treated any differently than any other camera. Kelly ^hi! 19:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Few things:

1. Diagnostic X-rays are not any old picture taken with a camera or X-ray machine. They are technical images produced by exceedingly strict guidelines with no room for creativity. Article from the University of Michigan [1]
2. The US copyright office takes the position that they are not copyrightable [2]
3. Thus we have [3]
4. We have a RfC here [4] with majority community support

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelly,

What makes a typical photograph copyrightable is not merely that it exists on paper (so do phone books, and they aren't), but that the photographer has made choices about how to represent the image. With a regular photograph, even with a simple snapshot, the photographer chooses the subject, the lighting, the angle, the exposure, the timing, and so forth, before pressing the button on the camera. All of those choices add up to a "creative element". The existence of a creative element is what makes it possible to claim copyright in a work.

With an X-ray, the physician chooses the subject, the regulations dictate the lighting and exposure, the exact time that you push the button is irrelevant (choosing when to "photograph" a person's bones is nothing like choosing when to photograph an ocean wave or the expression on a person's face), and the physician has almost always chosen the exact angle, too.

So the problem for claiming copyright on a diagnostic image is, if the technician gets no choice about any of the elements that would make a regular photograph be copyrightable, then where is the creative element that makes it copyrightable, rather than a mere routine collection of information (like a phone book)? ("Mechanical" in this sense seems to mean something more like "routine" or "robot-like" than like "using a machine". If it were "using a machine", then all photographs would be ineligible.)

NB that my description here is for routine medical diagnostic images. It does not apply to things like X-ray artwork, which use the same equipment but allow the operator to make most of these creative choices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page http://cool.conservation-us.org/byorg/lc/etextw/sess6.html claims that "The Copyright Office takes the position that X-rays are not copyrightable because they are mechanical" but the page does not provide any evidence that the Copyright Office takes the position that X-rays are mechanical. In fact, the Copyright Office has issued multiple registration numbers for X-ray images, which seems to contradict the idea that the copyright office doesn't consider such images as copyrightable in the first place. See for example VAu001014144 ("Anatomical Justice, LLC - Unpublished Works, October through December 2008") which is listed as having the following contents:

Doesn't this mean that the copyright office thinks that all of the 63 listed images are copyrightable? The Copyright Office is supposed to reject registrations of images below the threshold of originality, so I assume that all of them are copyrightable.

There is also, for example, TX0000680375, which has the title "Computed tomography of the brain : atlas of normal anatomy / G. Salamon [i.e. Georges Salamon], Y. P. Huang [i.e. Yun Peng Huang], in cooperation with J. M. Corbaz, G. Lecaque, G. Nagy ... [et al.] ; with 226 figures in 359 separate ill." I understand that this book also contains lots of text, and the Copyright Office might not have considered the artistic merits of all of the illustrations if the text is copyrightable (which is the usual situation for a book). --Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also might be worth noting that user Stefan2 appears to have a personal grudge against medical images on Wikipedia or Commons, using any justification to promote the deletion of such images. This behavior is disruptive to building an encyclopedia, and furthermore the justification given by Stefan2 often has zero basis in the real world.

If we look at the practical facts of this case:

• The image is clearly a pair with Hscafter
• It is the same patient
• It is the same uploader
• The image was uploaded at the same time
• The original reason for deleting this image was that it was missing information which had been attached to Hscafter.
• It therefore seems sensible to assume that the information on Hscafter applies to Hscbefore.
• Part of this information was "Dr. Leon Chen has released this picture into the public domain."
• Per James' comments above, "all x-rays are copyrightable and should be removed from wikipedia and commons" is totally without basis and against consensus, yet Stefan2 is allowed to continue daily with this behavior. Lesion (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not claimed that all X-rays are copyrightable. I have only claimed that there is no evidence that this isn't copyrightable. Also, on most days I have not even looked at medical images, so I am not sure what you mean with "continu[ing] daily with this behavio[u]r". --Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan you were involved in the RfC were the community on Commons came out against your position. Continuing to nominate images for deletion for which there is consensus that there is not an issue is disruptive and may get you blocked. I will post this on your talk page as well just to make sure that you are aware of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Stefan2 provides no evidence to counter the uploader's declaration that the originator, Dr Leon Chen, released the picture into the public domain. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploader credits the image to Dr. Leon Chen but according to the uploader's user page, the uploader is called Matthew Winther. If you upload copyrighted images created by someone else, you need OTRS permission – see WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The uploader also states that the image is in the public domain. Can we please just not be so rigid and apply some thought occasionally instead of systematically deleting things. Lesion (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dale Archer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphaned publicity photo, unclear if uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 19:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Copyvio of http://www.evinthayer.com/reviews/ --Stefan2 (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 F11 by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dambisa Moyo 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear permission per OTRS volunteer. We have another image of this person at File:Dambisa Moyo 2013 BlackRock.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove it. It was me who uploaded the Blackrock one to supersede it too. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.248.117 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dana.on.Bicycle.ireland1970.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed as both self-published and fair use. Kelly ^hi! 19:54, 20 November 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Data1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 22:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Used at http://board.ostfc.de/thread.php?threadid=6786 before it was uploaded to Wikipedia. The other site uses a low-resolution crop, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.