Commons:Deletion requests/Category:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month

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.

Category:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month

All of the images in this category (276 at this writing) are {{Copyvio}} candidates. Contrary to the claims on the individual image pages, the images are not creations of the U.S. Govt. and are not in the public domain. The license terms, which are not Commons-acceptable, are described at the PDB website, where it clearly reads "Molecule of the Month illustrations are copyrighted." —Danorton (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment (The {{Copyvio}} box was getting crowded.) A more complete excerpt from the PDB Polices & References page reads:

Molecule of the Month illustrations are copyrighted. They are available for educational purposes, provided attribution is given to David S. Goodsell and the RCSB PDB.

A Google search reveals a couple of dozen more such images not included in this category. (I suspect that there are a few more.)

The supporting reference links are no longer valid, but this page from archive.org at about the same time does not provide any suggestion that the works are creations of the U.S. Govt. or that they are in the public domain:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20060627073914/http://www.pdb.org/pdb/static.do?p=education_discussion/molecule_of_the_month/index.html

The bottom of that page reads "© RCSB Protein Data Bank".

This collection of {{Copyvio}} violations seems to be symptomatic of the common misconception that anything that is funded by the U.S. Govt. is a creation of the U.S. Govt. and, consequently, in the public domain. (See W:Work of the United States Government#Exemptions.) —Danorton (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• You are true. I think the Policies & References page did not exist (or, at least, it was not that clear) when I started uploading images. Anyway, I ask you to let me try to ask RCSB to release the images in cc-by, since the images are a lot (and a lot of projects commonly use them). I'm not confident that I'll succeed, but let's try... --Giac83 10:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I sent them the request (OTRS ticket 2009041510031969). Cross the fingers... --Giac83 11:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Bad answer!

      For the time being our policy is going to stay as listed at http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/policies_references.html

    Unfortunately, I think we should start to delete all Molecule of the Month images... :-( --Giac83 09:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Yes. What a pity! --Patho (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

 Comment The files were supplied by different sources. Some of it is government work, some are contractors, some may be university researchers. A whole category should not be deleted in this manner. In particular, uploaders must be notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Comment The fact that the sources are multifarious provides support for deletion, as source information that would allow verification of image licenses isn't generally provided. The uploaders should be notified for deletion of the individual images, but this issue is only about the category page, and only the creator of the page need be notified for this purpose. —Danorton (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: Actually, the quantity of Commons images affected by related licensing issues isn't simply "a lot", but it numbers in the tens of thousands. See a typical example at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1axc tricolor.png. —Danorton (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: Good that I finally came upon this discussion, after uploading half a dozen more from the MOM page. And I thought the biggest problem in the Commons proteins section is the bot-made SCOP hierarchy... I have a radical proposition: instead of uploading all those again as stills, start at once with animations (rotating) and let the 2D world behind, once and for all. --Ayacop (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

---

No consensus for deletion, default to "keep". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month

All images in the category not PD. see PDB Usage Policies: "Molecule of the Month illustrations are copyrighted. They are available for educational purposes, provided attribution is given to David S. Goodsell and the RCSB PDB". see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month shizhao (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Since they are all, at least by the terms of the source site, copyvio, it is not necessary to notify each uploader -- they are by our rules delete-on-sight.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree, though I like that stuff. However, as to copyright concerns  Delete. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
•  CommentUploader of each file must be get warning first.--苹果派.留言 20:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why exactly? If we have a copy violation, what do we need to contact the uploader? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• See the list at Commons:Deletion requests/PDB dummy and below set up to allow DelReqHandler to deal with these. (DRH will not deal with Category lists and doing 200+ deletions without it is dumb.)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Deleted. Copyvio per discussion -- uploader notice is not required to delete copyvios.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)