Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Ghislain Cotton"

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Though posted on a US Government site, these photos were taken by a Canadian Navy photographer (not US government employee) so are not eligible for {{PD-USN}}. Photos by Canadian government employees are not automatically PD.

-M.nelson (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep See User:Fæ/email/DoD; everything on DVIDS is unambiguously public domain, regardless of source. 隐世高人 (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully, I don't think the person who replied knows what they're talking about - they are clearly contradicted by the site's terms at https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright: In general, DoD VI that are works of authorship prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are not eligible for copyright protection in the United States; however, some of the DoD VI [motion and still media files] available on this publicly accessible website may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property rights owned by non-DoD parties, regardless of whether the VI is marked with a copyright notice or other indication of non-DoD ownership or interests. Any use of this DoD VI other than as expressly authorized in this notice may subject the user to legal liability, including liability to such non-DoD owners of intellectual property or other protectable legal interests. (emphasis added). Works by non-US Government employees (i.e. employees of other Navies) would fall under the bolded section. -M.nelson (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also similar request Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Royal CAnadian Navy photo". -M.nelson (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All evidence and rationale have been posted on the page I have provided above, and other affiliate pages (including other similar deletion requests) that link here. You can see that you are doing the same thing in these deletion requests if you look carefully at the contents in detail. 隐世高人 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see others disagreed with those discussions, I would have too. It was pointed out, but not sufficiently answered, that there's no legal basis or process for work to be transferred from copyright to {{PD-USGov}}. This contradiction with copyright law, and the contradiction with the site's own terms (which align with copyright law), both put significant doubt (COM:PRP) into the validity of the email response. -M.nelson (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So this is an attempt to overturn all decisions regarding the deletion debates related to this that have been closed? All right, let's see how the administrators decide on this issue. 隐世高人 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. As remarked by M.Nelson and checked, the source website states "some of the DoD VI available on this publicly accessible website may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property rights owned by non-DoD parties, regardless of whether the VI is marked with a copyright notice or other indication of non-DoD ownership or interests." This implicates these images made by a Canadian Navy photographer are not in PD in the USA and have to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]