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

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.

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)[reply]

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The supporting reference links are no longer valid, but this page from archive.org at about the same time does not provide any suggestion that the works are creations of the U.S. Govt.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:
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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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