Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ann Kirkpatrick talks about communicating with her offices.ogv
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.
This file was initially tagged by Mysterymanblue as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Kirkpatrick states at the beginning of the video that she was "working from home" when it was taken. Therefore, this video was likely captured by a member of her household, who would hold copyright over the video. Unless she has a federal employee working within her home - which seems unlikely - this video cannot possibly be a U.S. government work. Missvain (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - How do you know she wasn't working at home with an aide? I know Representative Mike Thompson and during the pandemic he had aides in his "pandemic pod" who worked with him at his house in St. Helena, California. I chose to assume good faith here. Also, as someone who lives alone and worked from home during the pandemic, I filmed videos of myself for work-related activities - alone. How do you know that Representative Kirkpatrick didn't do that? Missvain (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Missvain: We can tell that the video was shot handheld, so someone must have been holding the camera. Based on Kirkpatrick's shoulders, she likely was not filming it herself (selfie mode). Additionally, the attached tweet said "my office is operating virtually to help #StopTheSpread". How could she be stopping the spread if she was still in contact with staff not within her own household?
- While it's reasonable to assume good faith in others, I don't really see how that applies here. Congressional staff and congress people are under no obligation to only post U.S. government works to official U.S. government accounts. While I would personally appreciate if this were the case, it's not something they are obliged or even encouraged to do. I would imagine that most Congressional offices barely even think about how what they create may or may not be public domain - they are just trying to get their work done. They would be doing nothing wrong by posting a nonfree work, even though it gives all of us at Commons a headache!
- None of this is definitive evidence. One could say "What if it was a selfie stick?", "What if she lied about stopping the spread?", or "What if she gave her husband $5 before filming the video, therefore making it a work for hire for a U.S. Representative?" One could always imagine a million ways that a file could theoretically be freely licensed, but under the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, we just need significant doubt about the free usability of a file to delete it.
- Under 17 U.S. Code § 105(a), works of the United States government are generally in the public domain; a work of the United States government is defined by 17 U.S. Code § 101 as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". I believe that I have cast significant doubt on the idea that substantial parts of the video were filmed by an employee of the U.S. government as part of their official duties. Unless we have affirmative evidence that it is freely usable, it should be deleted. Mysterymanblue 19:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - unless it can be proven that her spouse/family member (the almost certain person who took the video) was a government employee, this is not PD-US-GOV. It must be taken as an official duty of a government employee, not just merely used by a government employee as part of their official duties. PRP applies. Berchanhimez (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)