Commons:Deletion requests/File:Notoryctes typhlops.jpg

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.

File:Notoryctes typhlops.jpg

The file is a copyright infringement. It is a cropped scan of a photograph identical to one appearing on p.411 of Ronald Strahan (ed), The Mammals of Australia (1998), New Holland Publishers, Carlton, VIC. The imprint of this book attributes copyright for its photography to "Australian Museum and photographers as credited, 1995".
David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. The photograph in The Mammals of Australia is credited to a D. Roff. Here is a cropped, reversed, black and white copy of what appears to be the same photo.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now replaced the deletion request template on the file's information page with a copyviol template, thus making it a candidate for speedy deletion. This is what I had originally intended to do, but either I misunderstood the instructions I had got hold of, or they weren't accurate.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This file was initially tagged by David J Wilson as Copyvio (copyviol) and the most recent rationale was: This file is a cropped scan of a photograph identical to one appearing on p.411 of Ronald Strahan (ed), Mammals of Australia (1998), New Holland Publishers, Carlton, VIC. The imprint of this book attributes copyright for its photography to "Australian Museum and photographers as credited, 1995", and this image of the marsupial mole is credited to D.Roff. Ankry (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Back to DR as an action should be taken simultaneusly concerning its derivative work:

• File:Mammal Diversity 2011.png

(delete also, remove this image or replace with another)
Ankry (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why "This file does not qualify for speedy-deletion ...", to quote the edit summary on your reversion to a normal deletion request. I certainly don't understand the rationale given in your comment. That the image in the file comes from the same source as the one appearing in The Mammals of Australia is so obvious as to be beyond dispute. It is therefore an obvious infringement of copyright, as is its derivative work, File:Mammal Diversity 2011.png. It seems to me that the appropriate action, which I had intended to take when I could find the time, would have been to flag this derivative work also as a copyvio. Since I don't want to be guilty of violating some commons policy that I'm unaware of, I will defer taking this action until someone can give me a clear explanation of why it is or isn't appropriate.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Did you warned to the original uploader rather than the BOT? Also, is important to mention than the file has been uploaded in 2006 and transfered to Commons in 2007, and currently is widelly used (a good reason why the file may not be speedely deleted). I agree the copyvio, but is a good idea to upload a new version of this file with a free alternative picture rater than speedelly deleting an widelly used file uploaded several years ago. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the fact that the file was uploaded in 2006 and transferred to Commons in 2007, and is now widely used, does not at all constitute a "good reason" why the file possibly ought not be speedily deleted. Are you aware of any jurisdiction in which a copyright infringer is entitled to continue distributing infringing copies of files on the grounds that previously distributed infringing copies are widely used, and he needs time to find freely licensed replacements? It's certainly not true in Australia where I live, and I doubt if there's any jurisdiction where it is.

I agree that it would be great if someone could find and upload a freely licensed image of the marsupial mole. However, there are good reasons for believing that this might be very difficult. The animal is quite elusive, spending most of its time underground, and there is apparently no zoo anywhere with a living specimen. While it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that a casual tourist might be lucky enough to get a snap of one in the wild, the vast majority—perhaps all—available photographs are likely to have been taken by professional wildlife photographers, and I expect that very few—perhaps none—of these would agree to their images' being distributed under a free license that allows commercial use. But I'm afraid I can't see how this in any way justifies delaying the deletion of a copyright-infringing image.

I presume that by "original uploader" in your initial question you're referring to editor Bartus.malec on Polish Wikipedia, who uploaded the file to that Wikipedia. As you're no doubt already aware, no, I did not notify that user that I had nominated the file for deletion or for speedy deletion. There are a couple of reasons for this:

• That user doesn't have an account on Commons, nor, as far as I can tell, on any Wikimedia project in any language I can understand;
• I do not understand Polish, and I'm not prepared to try editing on any Wikimedia project where I have such a deficient grasp of what I would have been doing if I had tried to edit the Polish Wikipedia.

I have since managed to change my preferences on Polish Wikipedia so its page information is now displayed to me in English, and I would now be prepared to try communicating (in English or Italian) with users there by editing their talk pages. However I see that editor Ankry has now notified Bartus.malec in Polish of the deletion request, so there is no longer any need for me to do so.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As you have creared this DR, please leave the decission to convert it to {{speedy}} to someone else. It is a good habit. As the image has been here for 8 years, aweek or two more should not matter. Unless you know a very good reason for urgent deletion. It is also more helpful for other wikis to leave them time to find a replacement.

Speedy deletion rationale for copyvio is to delete the image before it is available outside wiki. Not this case. Ankry (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. As far as I'm concerned, this settles the issue. However, I would like to clarify a few points.

• The original tagging of the image with a {{delete}} template, and hence also the creation of this deletion request, was a mistake on my part. I was under the erroneous impression that after clicking on the "nominate for deletion" link on the left of the image's page I would be given the option of tagging the image as a copyvio. In replacing the {{delete}} template with the {{copyvio}} template—N.B. not the {{speedy}} template—I was simply rectifying that mistake.
• I'm perfectly well aware that the decision whether or not to speedily delete a file lies with administrators at their discretion, and I had no intention of trying to usurp that role, which, in any case, I have no power to do. However, since Commons policy, on my reading, seems to say that obvious copyright infringements should be speedily deleted, I was puzzled as to why you believe that this file doesn't qualify. Since you have now provided some sort of explanation, as unsatisfactory as I find it, I'm perfectly willing to drop the matter.
• I found your comment "unless you know a very good reason for urgent deletion" extremely frustrating. As far as I'm concerned I have already provided a perfectly good reason—namely, the file is a blatant copyright infringement. I presume you simply disagree that this constitutes a "good reason". If so, it's my opinion that you're badly mistaken, but I see little point engaging in further discussion on the issue.

On a more positive note, my pessimism about the existence of freely licensable or public domain images of the marsupial mole seems to have been premature. The scientific article originally describing the marsupial mole, published in 1891, was illustrated with some very nice lithographs, on which all copyright is now quite likely to have expired. The artist responsible for the drawings from which the lithographs were made died in 1938, so all copyright on those has certainly now expired. There is a fly in the ointment, however. Under Australian copyright law, the lithographer would have retained some rights in his lithographs even though he made them in the course of his employment with the South Australian Government Printer. It seems quite likely that the lithographer would have died before January 1st, 1955, in which case all copyright in the lithographs would have now expired also. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to confirm whether this is the case, and if the lithographer did survive beyond that date, some parts of the copyright would not expire until 2025 at the earliest, and the images would not then be eligible for uploading to Commons.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now determined that the images of the marsupial mole which I referred to above are in the public domain, and I have therefore uploaded one of them.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As you uploaded a new version, do you want to close this DR? If yes, please use {{Withdraw}}. Once this DR is closed, the old non-free version must be speedely deleted using {{Speedy|Delete old version}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems to me to be an unnecessarily complicated procedure for several reasons:

• This is the deletion discussion not only for File:Notoryctes typhlops.jpg but also for File:Mammal Diversity 2011.png. It was not I, but administrator Ankry, who nominated the latter for deletion, and so far no-one has yet uploaded a free version of it. Thus any withdrawal by me of this nomination would have to make it clear that it was intended to apply only to the former file and not to the latter.
• Since the old version of the file is a copyright infringement, administrators already have the option, at their discretion, of speedily deleting it without any further action on my part.
• I have been told in no uncertain terms that I should leave the decision whether or not to speedily delete the file to someone else. Although the upload of a public domain version has now obviated some of the reasons given for that warning, I am nevertheless reluctant to renominate the old version for speedy deletion myself.
  

David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@David J Wilson and Amitie 10g: Note, that initial version of this image is still present in File:Mammal Diversity 2011.png (left image in the 2nd row - it is a derivative work of it). The initial version of File:Notoryctes typhlops.jpg already deleted. Ankry (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. I blanked the image in File:Mammal Diversity 2011.png; the current verssion of File:Notoryctes typhlops.jpg is not appropriate to put it there. Feel free to find a better replacement. So closing this request.

---

 Done Initial (copyvio) file versions  deleted, current  kept as no longer copyvio. Ankry (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)