Commons:Deletion requests/File:СИЗОД в медучреждениях OSHA 3767.pdf
There are photos in this PDF which are credited to stock photo agencies. The author may have gotten licenses to use these images, but they have not got the legal right to sub-license them under a free Creative Commons license. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, I apologize for the bad English.
- Who is the author of this document? The document clearly states that it was created with the participation of 3M, Service Employees International Union, and many other organizations. One can expect that some fragments of the text are written by authors, who do not work in OSHA. Accordingly, if the authors from these organizations did not authorize the use of their creative work under the Creative Commons license, then the whole text of the document can not be considered "free Creative Commons license".
- The document contains more than 10 different photographs, the authors of which also do not work in OSHA. In this case, in the text under the photos, never indicated what their license is. As Josve05a rightly noted, in the absence of licenses for these photographs, the whole document can not be in the public domain, and "may NOT be freely copied or reprinted".
- Since this document (see page 1) was created under the supervision of OSHA staff, and this organization is indicated by the main author (the final author) of the entire document, it is possible that OSHA is not allowed to use photographs or/and text written by authors from other organizations, and OSHA committed a violation. Or (alternative) - authors from other organizations allowed use their creative work, but they were not allowed to use it as a public domain (may NOT be freely copied or reprinted).
- If there is a violation (the text and / or photos are inadmissible); or the organization (OSHA) incorrectly pointed out that the document is in the public domain - then this organization has developed a document (This document is in the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted ... The recommendations ... are intended to assist employers in providing a safe and healthful workplace) by permitting infringements (or copyrights, or by illegally indicating that the document is in the public domain).
Suggestion:
Contact OSHA and ask them to stop violating the current legislation - if they violate it.
If the authors (whose rights could be violated) did not apply to OSHA with a demand to stop violating their rights (for 3 years), it is possible that the entire document is in the public domain really.
I (personally) had no reason to consider OSHA to be a copyright infringer, since in a document listed as public domain, and these photos are posted with the consent of the authors. A photo (Worker wearing a filtering facepiece respirator photo: Haylard Health, Inc, on page 10/20) was also used by NIOSH (many times, at least since 2013, example: page 7/8 https://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/docs/2013-138/pdfs/2013-138.pdf).
Why should I suspect that not only OSHA, but also NIOSH are acting incorrectly (and systematically)? The phrase (This document is in the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted) at the beginning of the document should refer not to those selected and separate parts of the text of the document that were created without the participation of external organizations, but to the entire document (in my humble and subjective opinion). The practice of pointing out that the document is "in the public domain" is widespread in OSHA & NIOSH (many years); and it is possible that those co-authors who participated in the creation of the document do not object to copying their contribution to the document. There are no facts (available), indicating that the contribution of other organizations (text / photo) is not in the public domain.
Documents OSHA & NIOSH are copied many times by different organizations - without any conflicts due to lack of licenses for large fragments of text (written by representatives of other organizations), example, author of Appendix F.
If there is a contribution of different authors from different organizations to some document, then really, it is better to do this with more accurate and correct indication of licenses both for the whole document and for all its separate parts. Unfortunately, this was not done. AlexChirkin (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)