Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giuliani letter to Ukraine President.jpg
Wiki rules require when removing the Speedy Template to change to the Regular Delete template. I do not wish this file to be deleted since it is not a violation. There is a dispute with another editor. Author claims since it was originally written by President Trump's personal attorney that it is a violation. I claim that since the document was released by the US House of Representatives that this made it freely available and issued by the US Government.Pbmaise (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Pbmaise (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. There's no evidence it was written by the President at all. It looks to be a letter from Rudy Giuliani as private counsel for the President to the President. Giuliani would have the copyright which would only be waived if he was working for the government and he wasn't at the time. The more cautionary approach would be to delete this here and let English use it under fair use (it's also used at uk but I don't know how that works there). And no, the House releasing something doesn't mean the original copyright is gone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete – I am the one who nominated this file for deletion. The license template on it is false. Rudy Giuliani is not a U.S. government employee. This document is copyrighted by Giuliani who is a private citizen serving as a private attorney to the U.S. president. I also see no source for this document listed on the file. The uploader claims the file can be found on https://docs.house.gov/. I do not see it there and even if it was that does not automatically mean it is PD. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)- Keep Both "the House and Senate Reports on the Copyright Act of 1976 include the "reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports" among examples of fair use"File:https://fas.org/sgp/crs/policy.html. The document in question was requested by the US House of Representatives according to a subpoena issued to Lev Parnas on October 10th, 2019Media: Breuninger, Kevin (October 10, 2019). "Giuliani associates tied to Ukraine efforts are subpoenaed in House impeachment inquiry". CNBC. Retrieved January 20, 2020. and hence was part of a judicial proceeding. More specifically both the subpoena and document originated from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Hence the document in question was legally obtained by Congress as part of Judicial proceeding.
There is no question that the document was released by the US Government. The question is whether fair use of the document can be made once the document has been released. There is no question in the media. They have indeed used the document in their news articles and this document has been distributed worldwide.
Example of use of the document can be seen at Media:https://www.npr.org/2020/01/15/796593183/new-lev-parnas-documents-suggest-u-s-ambassador-was-under-surveillance-in-ukrain
Let's turn to a discussion on fair use of potentially copyrighted documents that have been released under the Freedom of Information Act. See: This document by the US Department of Justice File:https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-oip-guidance-copyrighted-materials-and-foia
"the revised Copyright Act specifically codifies the common law doctrine of "fair use," which permits the reproduction of copyrighted materials "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . . scholarship, or research" without liability for infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 107."
The use within Wiki Commons of this document falls directly under that criteria.
The document in question is freely available to the public as a matter of agency record. Indeed the documents were published by the US Government.
So the question may turn did the US Government legally release the document? Again we can turn to the US Department of Justice analysis for answers.
They outline two important reasons why a document may not be released:
Records "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), and, Protection of "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)
The letter by Giuliani was written to a Ukrainian and copied to another Ukrainian. It cannot be argued that this was an internal letter between the President and his personal attorney.
In the case of the email written by the President's current attorney Sekulow to a former attorney Dowd, the email was obviously given to Lev Parnas. That is why he had it in his possession. Lev Parnas is a private citizen and hence any possible theory of priviledged communication between the two attorneys was lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbmaise (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Pbmaise (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete After reviewing the page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use I now see that while the document is fair use, fair use is not acceptable. Pbmaise (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep On the other hand I just finished reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content these items constitute non-free content and this type of content is specifically permitted under certain circumstances. Underneath these wikipedia guidelines,
"Their use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events"
The impeachment of the United States President and evidence that his personal attorney acting with Lev Parnas were trying to shake down the Ukrainian government certainly constitutes material illustrating a historically significant event. Therefore, the material can be used.
I need to follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Implementation Pbmaise (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per Coffeeandcrumbs. --Sealle (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
