Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sunflowers.jpg
Also images derived from this:
- File:200px-Fleur-de-Tournesol.PNG
- File:Userbox sunflowers.png
- File:Exemple.jpg
- File:GirasolesSF.JPG
- File:Diversity of plants image version 3.png
- File:Diversity of plants image.png
- File:Diversity of plants image version 3.png
This image is not PD -- it is credited to Bruce Fritz, who is a professional photographer and not a USDA employee, see http://www.fritz-photography.com/Client%20List/ClientList.html. It cannot be kept here without a free license from Fritz. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep widely used image! Used 392 times! --107.185.218.38 22:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- We do not keep copyright violations no matter how often they are used. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If the USDA wanted a photo of sunflowers and hired Bruce Fritz to take one for them, then the photo would likely be a work for hire by a US government agency and not subject to copyright. On the other hand, if Bruce Fritz created the photo on his own and licensed it to the USDA, it would be subject to copyright. But it would be peculiar that the USDA did not mention the license, e.g. "used with permission" or somesuch, and instead simply grouped it with their own photos while offering a high-resolution download without mention of this fact. The former possibility seems much more likely to me.
Since this is a picture of the day, former featured pic, and very widely used, it's removal could be expected to cause wide disruption. Has anyone reached out to Bruce Fritz? His e-mail is right there on the page. I'd recommend we Keep the image for now, but ask Fritz, and remove it if it turns out the work was first created as a private work.– Quadell (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- The only work for hire I have come across belonging to the Federal Government is the the Sacagawea dollar obverse and in that case, the government enforces the copyright. I can't cite a single instance where a painting, photograph or sculpture owned by the Federal government, but created by a non-employee, is free of copyright unless the copyright has expired or "no notice" or "not renewed" applies. Thus, the sculptor of the Korean War Veterans Memorial won a $600,000+ judgement (via the US Supreme Court) against the US Postal Service. Also see the cited DRs at Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House.
- Certainly getting a license from Fritz would be the best course, but while that is in process our clear policy is to delete copyvios and then restore them if and when a license comes through. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep until it has been established that is a copyvio. Getting it wrong based on one person's opinion would be a nightmare to cleanup. Have we proved that Bruce Fritz was not employed by the USDA at the time? Or that he didn't sign over the copyright to the USDA? I think the easiest course of action would be to contact him. ed g2s • talk 19:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - none of the keep votes addresses the core of the problem - 'widely used' is really not an argument to keep a copyright violation online. --Jcb (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested: I sent an e-mail message to the photographer (using the contact information from his website), and I got no response. Therefore, if someone wants to follow up on this, it might be more productive to contact the USDA rather than the photographer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
