Commons:Deletion requests/Duncan Cameron images

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.

Duncan Cameron images

[edit]

Additionally:

A previous deletion request determined that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) images not indicated to be public domain are not free (per receipt of a LAC email indicating that re-use and derivatives are limited). Several images (the four above and possibly others) have been uploaded since that discussion, and may require additional consideration. These images are from the Duncan Cameron collection, which has a collection-specific terms of use which sets forth, in part, "All photographs except the 5 Time Canada cover lay-outs (accession number 1976-079) are open; no restrictions on use or reproduction. Copyright for photographs by Duncan Cameron belongs to the National Archives of Canada."

I haven't yet formed on opinion on the status of these images, but would like a wider discussion of how the community believes the collection's terms of use, the individual images' terms of use and the Cloutier letter - alone and in interaction with one another - should be interpreted (e.g. whether the collection's terms of use are subordinate to the Cloutier letter, whether the "no restrictions on use or reproduction" is believed to encompass derivatives, etc.) Эlcobbola talk 15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note addition of six images after opening the request [1] . Эlcobbola talk 22:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per their general copyright notice http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/notices/016-200-e.html (section 5) and per the email they require to be "contacted for any re-use of [their] original material" and that they "supply the copies of the material to ensure that the authenticity is retained". So the images are free to reuse after contacting them, thats a clear requirement and they are the opyright holder. Any more discussion is not required, copyrighted images and permission requirement is not fulfilled. If someone still thinks this not-PD images on the website are free to copy (which they are not) we can still not for sure say that derivatives are allowed. The "no restrictions" is ambitious, but per the email it fails our criterias of free content.  Delete --Martin H. (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 KeepThe notice that indicated the Duncan Cameron images could be used freely overrode everything else. Especially it overrode an email which did not address the Cameron images, but was a general statement, and which no one who did not get the email would be on notice of. If you post a sign that says something is free, it is useless to say later that it is really not free. As for elcobbola's question as to whether the statement indicated fee use of derivitives, how else would you interpret the word "use"? While the nights are long and cold in Canada, they must have meant something when they indicated the Cameron images had "no restrictions on use or reprduction" and presumably were not intoxicated. In law, the specific overrides the general when they conflict. I say that we are entitled to take them at their word and any other interpretation is straining at gnats.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I dont see why the general terms not overrides this. The general terms clearly say: For all material reproduced from our website, we ask that you respect the conditions listed below. These conditions apply to material that you have obtained written permission to reproduce from Library and Archives Canada and/or any unrestricted public domain material, which can be reproduced without permission. [...] You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced. Well, this cant apply to PD content contrary to their saying but it can clearly apply to content they have the copyright on. We talk about copyrighted images here and the term of their website is non-derivative, so not free (&I think you must aks for permission). If it is the copyright holders intention to realy grant permission on free reuse including derivatives (&without asking before) it would be no problem to have this permission simply written to OTRS. Or? Grabbing non-free content from other websites just on the basis of an unclear copyright statement is not Commons aim. --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then they just added useless language to their site over a bottle of Canadian Club? Because by your logic, the "no restrictions" language is useless, meaningless, and it makes no difference whether it is there or not. Why would they do that?
Well, LAC apparently thinks they can condition use of PD images, because you got it off their websites. By that logic, we should expand this and delete anything on their website.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, only those images they can restrict by copyright law. Non of the images listed here is pd. --Martin H. (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to think if you get it off their web site, they retain control, even if PD. I'm still waiting, why is the "no restrictions" language there if there are restrictions?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative  Keep, provided these are all Duncan Cameron images, because of the particular statement on those works. But, I can see the counterargument, and copyright would indeed still be held by the archives. It seems to me that their goal is to preserve authenticity, i.e. any modified work should be clearly marked as such so nobody confuses it with the original. I.e., they seem to be more along the lines of moral rights (particularly since that they seem to try to enforce the same restrictions on unambiguously PD works). Those type of restrictions often don't go away even when copyright itself expires. I'm not sure they are really trying to prevent all derivative works. The non-modification thing is also a request, not a requirement (they are asking). The written permission for still-copyright works is a lot more problematic though. However, they explicitly say "no restrictions on use or reproduction" for those particular photographs. That is kind of hard to reconcile with the "nothing without written permission" general statement, so I could see that as an exemption from the general requirement -- they seem to grant the permission to reproduce ahead of time there. In general, I would agree most archives.ca works still under copyright would not be free, but the statement on this collection does seem to be fairly specific. Borderline though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - the collection-specific terms say: "open; no restrictions on use or reproduction". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Published at source with a declaration of no restrictions on use. DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Guys, a poorly worded and contradictory website does not amount to a license. The two LAC statements (the email and the general site notice) refer to the *entire* archive (including PD works!), so it does not matter that it made no specific reference to this collection. Let's repeat the LAC statement from the email:

The terms of re-use of material which appears on your website,specifically granting permission to modify or create derivative products,does not meet our criteria to ensure that the authenticity of the originalmaterial which comes from our collections is retained. Additionally, the terms of re-use on your website state that the material can be copied and distributed directly from your website. Library and Archives Canada requires that we be contacted for any re-use of our original material and we supply the copies of the material to ensure that the authenticity is retained. This is achieved by licensing on a "one-time" use only. Any subsequent use or re-use of our material is subject to a separate license.

Several users asked above what the "no restrictions on use" phrases refers to, if not copyright status. Here is your answer: is it an internal reference to restrictions placed on LAC by the original copyright owner. It is not a copyright license. Think of our obligation to Commons and, more importantly, people who re-use Commons content: we need to be absolutely certain a free license has been granted. That is not the case here. --Padraic 12:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. As the above, it's pretty certain that "no restrictions on use or reproduction" refers to restrictions placed on LAC, not a grant of rights to the world at large. Whatever we'd like to think that means, LAC are pretty sure they knew what they meant:
Our material which is posted on your website is being advertised as having no restrictions, when in fact, there are restrictions with all our licenses, especially concerning modification and re-distribution.
And this was referring to images with the same "no restrictions" wording on the library's website that these ones have (an admin might want to double-check this on those deleted images, but I'm pretty sure that's how it was). So yup. By their actions, they've made it quite clear that that "no restrictions" doesn't mean "hey random member of the public, you can do anything you like with these photos". I think their interpretation of their own words, overrides what we'd like those to think. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was not similar language to my knowledge. Most of the images did not contain language analogous to that on the Cameron collection.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An admin can look at the deleted revisions and check the source themselves. I'm pretty certain it was, but I'm doing this from memory. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. For the sake of clarity, I'm talking about the collection-specific terms of use here. Keep in mind that post facto glossing by the LAC is interesting, but we still have to judge based on what they say. After all, most of the world isn't privy to the letter that was sent to that editor and quoted, and I would really like to see the letter they responded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is unimportant. It is different for many collections, but this "terms of use" still means, what they can do, it not means what anyone else can do. Copyright by them, they have no restrictions to copy or distribute the images. Per the general terms we must ask them to reuse their material and they will grant us a license that allows us to reuse the image for our purposes (except modification, except redistribution, ..). --Martin H. (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any lawyer will tell you that not only is the wording important, it is the only thing. You are supplying what you believe it should say, not what it does say.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I repeated Padraics information. I can say the same: You think you can reuse their property contrary to their terms and against their email statement based only on the misinterpretation of their documentation. --Martin H. (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of Canada has many lawyers. The onus is on them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wat. No, given that we have a very clear statement from them that we're not allowed to re-use their stuff, the onus is on us to show that the "no restrictions" wording means "you can do whatever you want with this". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The words say what they say. What about the people who are not part of Wikipedia, they would not be bound by that email. They've had two years to change their web site since that letter. Not buying it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the email.. I know people tend not to read terms of use of websites, they dont care that they use an service that is for free but that also has some conditions. In their websites terms it is written clear, and thats linked on every page of their site and repeated here already many times: Before reproducing material from the LAC website, please read important copyright information: Reading that copyright information brings. that [...]Copyright in the material held in our collection may be owned by Library and Archives Canada or a third party, or may be in the public domain. Before reproducing material from the Library and Archives Canada website, please read the information below.[...] Ok, we have three kinds of material here, for the Duncan Cameron images we know, that Copyright is owned by LAC, thats also written in the collection terms. Reading what they say about copyright by LAC: [...]In such cases, users must obtain written permission from Library and Archives Canada. Reading further explains us, that we are only allowed to reproduce public domain content without asking the copyright holder, either the LAC or a third party, before reuse. We are not allowed to reproduce any other content from their site!! --Martin H. (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you are quoting out of context here, for example to try to intimate that "such cases" includes this one, and glossing with your own characterizations of what the page says. But if you do want to go to the terms of use, note the following language on the page you cited,

"Some collections in the holdings of Library and Archives Canada are subject to use/reproduction restrictions, which may apply to material protected by copyright or in the public domain. Some restrictions require that you obtain written permission to reproduce the material and/or obtain copies. In cases like these, the use/reproduction restrictions will be clearly indicated on our website."

And we had, for the Duncan Cameron collection, "no restrictions on use or reproduction". It even uses the exact terms in the same order, use and reproduction. Clearly this governs. For some, you have to write for their permission, for others you can go ahead and use it, with credit to LAC. Seems pretty clear this is the latter. That's it, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats still not removes the clear requirement to ask for all content owned by them before reuse. Thats clearly outlined in their terms, in the email, stated in about >10 deletion requests including this... and it is obvious by commons sense: You cant grab someones property on the base of misinterpretations and ignorance of the written statement from the owner. The case is clear and it was from the beginning, or what do you think why this WAS already clearified in the older deletion request? We can reuse PD content as they cant restrict it, we can not reuse any copyrighted material as it is not free! If you insist on that this images with copyright by them are free to reuse, can you please simply ask them before making any more vague speculations? --Martin H. (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly they will repeat what they said in the letter. However, what is binding is what they put on the web, in their terms and conditions. That's pretty clear, and it is what the world is on notice of. And no I disagree with your claim about clear requirements and so forth, this is a collection-specific term of use, in which they've stated no restrictions on reproduction or use. If they meant something else, no email is needed. They need only change what's on the web. Whether that would alter those who used the images in good faith is a question for another time.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me it looks like you are the only one who is not understanding their terms. Thats sad, but it is not Commons problem nor is it the LACs problem as misunderstanding has no effect on their copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keepthe purpose of general terms is to provide for those items without specific terms. If they over-rode specific terms for particular items or sets of items there would be no purpose in having specific terms at all. DGG (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the comments by Padraic and Lewis Collard above: "no restrictions on use or reproduction" refers to restrictions placed on LAC (what they can do with the files and if they can grant you reuse permissions if you ask them as required by their general terms), its not a grant of rights to the world at large. --Martin H. (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation, obviously others differ. No need to badger everyone who differs. I have not badgered those who took your part.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, the copyright of the Duncan Cameron collection is held by the LAC, and they have made it quite clear these images are not free according to our standards. Kameraad Pjotr 19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Duncan_Cameron_images&oldid=42028446"