Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images

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.

Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images

[edit]

Only work of the U.S. federal government or employees of it made as part of that person's official duties, is in the public domain.

This newspaper uses images from e.g. Gettty Images, AP and Reuters (example) and screenshots or movie posters from movie in their movie reviews (examples: page 16, page 5) and photos sent in by readers, which are not employees of the US Government (example; last page), as well as a lot of unattributed images and graphics, and many "photo courtesy by" (example, page 12)

list of files

[edit]
 Delete per above Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The Wire Issue-25v11.pdf
    • Page 5 - 4 images covering the entire page
      • Thanks for using a URL that takes one to the page that triggers your concern. I think your description is misleading, however. About half of page 5 bears four proprietary images from a Hollywood movie. Since the issue is 16 pages long these images represent just about three percent of the issue. Could you please explain why you don't accept that this three percent shouldn't be recognized as "de minimus"? Geo Swan (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • See comment at the bottom regarding aplication of de minimis for controlled publications and screenshots. (I will go through most files tomorrow and mark a detailed list of all non-free elements. After WMSE's Pride-workshop.) Josve05a (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per above Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
maybe ok Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete screeshot+book cover p.6 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete film cover p4 +several courtesy photos Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete book cover p6 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete film poster p10 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete film/tv serie images p10 11 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete "Newsday Photo" p5 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete some photo with no attribution, though likely taken by soldier during their free time, therefore not in PD Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete a singer photo p9 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
maybe ok Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete a pope photo + several courtesy ones Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete courtesy photo p8 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete movie + advertising p6 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete movie poster p3 + unclear copyright statut of the cover Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete movie image p9 + one courtesy photo p10 Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete movie images p10-11 Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete movie image+ 1 courtesy article+photo Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
maybe ok Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
maybe ok Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete unclear copyright statut of photos taken during free time p9 Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the images on page 9 are of GIs performing while off duty, Sergeant Tommi Meyer, the author of the article, was part of the public affairs unit on the base, the GIs whose duties included publishing the issue. So, I suggest that you are mistaken that there is any doubt as to whether those images were PD. Geo Swan (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete unclear authorship/ copyright statut of fruits and vegetables icons on last page Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josve05a (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

[edit]
Do all pdfs have copyrighted images? Cause i think this one doesn't have any.--Sanandros (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I uploaded these file, one per week, as they were published, for the last decade.
  • Issue zero of volume 2 was the first volume to be put online, at approximately the time the captives were moved from the infamous camp Xray, to the more permanent camp Delta.
  • Almost every issue, from the later volumes, contains a review, written by a GI, of a film about to be shown to the GIs -- and those reviews are all illustrated by one or more promotional pictures from the movie. However, typically, the proprietary promotional images constitute between two to four percent of the entire issue.
  • The earliest volumes are more primitive, and contain no movie review, and no proprietary images.
  • For most years of publication entire issues were just over 2 megabytes in size, Oviously, when an entire 12 or 16 page issue is only two megabytes, none of the images embedded in the pdf can be high resolution. Many were only a couple of dozen kilobytes. Average image size increased for the very most recent volumes -- to about 4 megabytes, with the occasional exceptional issue that is 6 megabytes. Still small.
  • I believe the principle of "de minimus" applies to the frankly tiny admixture of these hollywood inclusions.
  • Nominator's examples include an issue published on the anniversary of 9-11, where the GIs went out and used half a dozen wire images for a 9-11 memorial page. Such inclusions of wire service images are extremely rare.
  • About 8 years ago an issue contained an article on the Cuban Hutia, rodents the size of cats, that look like rats. I had never seen a picture of one before, so I clipped the picture, and went to upload it to the wikimedia commons, under {{PD-USGov-Military}}, thinking the GI who wrote the article took the image himself. I found the image was a copy of an image a German wikipedia contributor had taken of a Hutia in a zoo in Berlin. Geo Swan (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sry but i'm opposing this mass deletion as every pdf needs a review, see also URAA DR. It's ok to put all reviewed pdfs in one DR but the rest should be also reviewed as i think i found one above which doesn't have copyrighted pics.--Sanandros (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep As I wrote above, I uploaded these images, and I believe the frankly very small incidental inclusion of a few proprietary images, that only takes up a few percentage of the entire issue, falls under the de minimus principle. Geo Swan (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment does there exist a tool to modify the pdf such as that only the pic it out of the pdf and the text remains?-Sanandros (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros: It is possible, with the right software, to 'disassemble' the PDF into a set of page images, which could then have the copyrighted material redacted, and then create a new 'cleaned' PDF to be uploaded.... this is, for example, done with public domain 'Google Books' PDFs, which include a page that consists of text copyrighted by Google... in that case, however, you simply replace the 'problematic' page with a copy of a blank page from elsewhere in the same document. A redacted version of these files would be fine, but the effort required would be fairly significant. There is no way I know of to do it other than 'manually' editing the image of every page with a problem. Reventtalk 05:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking some peiple on de if they know a way.--Sanandros (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for looking!

    I tried out a couple of chrome extensions that claim to be able to edit pdf files. The most popular, something called Kami PDF escape, doesn't handle "large" files. The second one I tried, PDFzorro, did work, on the first dozen or so files I tried it on. It has some awkward features, typical of beta software. And it totally failed to work on one file, File:The Wire Issue22v11.pdf. Maybe JTF-GTMO left all the others unlocked, while locking this one. I dunno.

    Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

does de minimis apply?

[edit]

Does the Commons:de minimis principle apply to a pdf file, of many pages length, when it contains a tiny percentage of proprietary material?

If I am walking down a street, and snap a picture, I can still put it in the public domain, even if, in the background a guy is reading a magazine, and a viewer can make out that it is, let's say Time, and they can recognize who is on that cover. The picture is essentially, of the street, and the magazine cover is incidental.

In this comment nominator wrote: "One might claim de minimis for images that only are on one page of a PDF; however imo de minimis is for unintended inclutions of copyrighted elements. Hoeever in PDF, just as with screenshots, these elements are very well intended and main focus of those pages they appear. Therefore the argument of de minimis falls flat when it comes to PDFs. "

I was going to ask nominator for a reference, except, when pasting in this passage, I see I overlooked the IMO, so I assume nominator has no reference to back up the opinion.

I asked our nominator to go back and use less obfuscated urls for his or her examples in the body of the explanation for the nomination. At this point they haven't done so, so I did my best in the following table. Geo Swan (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination's specific examples
issue url to
image		 percentage
of entire
issue		 comments
File:The Wire Issue v13i01.pdf ?

Nominator didn't say which page or pages concerned him or her...

About 3/4 of page 13 is taken up by a pictue of generic minarets, informing GIs of the muslim celebration of Eid. That is 3.75 % of the issue.

About 1/8th of page 16 is taken up by a picture of Hollywood actor Matt Damon, illustrating a review of one of his films. That constitutes about 0.6 % of the issue.

Added together that is still less than five percent of the issue.

File:The Wire Issue39v12.pdf

page 7
page 10
page 11
page 13

27 %

This is an exceptional case. This issue was an expanded issue, containing 8 extra pages, to memorialize the 10th anniversary of al-Qaeda's attacks of 9-11. 5.5 of those extra pages contain wire service images related to the response to 9-11.

At 27 % this is the only file I am aware for which I would agree de minimus doesn't apply. Few issues have as much as 5 percent non-PD images, and I don't think any other issue has even 10 percent.

However, rather than deleting the whole image I suggest that, rather than leave questions in readers minds about censorship, this particular issue should be edited, replacing the proprietary images with a white box that says something like "Originally this page contained a photo montage composed of proprietary images, which have been blanked because they are not freely distributable" -- or something like that.

File:The Wire Issue22v11.pdf [1] 3.75 %

Two posters for a movie with Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. Many issues contain similar images.

File:The Wire Issue v19i04.pdf [2] 6.25 %

This is the an instance of a feature the publication added a year or so ago. Every recent issue publishes a photo taken by a GI leaving the base. If nominator assumed it was taken by a professional photographer, they were mistaken.

Images taken by Federal employees are PD -- when they are taken as part of their duties. I've wondered about this. A GI is on patrol, and Sarge tells his subordinates to take five, and have a smoke. If a GI pulls out his cellphone, or personal camera, and snaps some photos when on that smoke break, is it still PD? What about when he gets back to barracks, and is off-duty?

I think it is likely that the Captain of a ship would issue instructions to the crew restricting when they can take photos. I think this would be a strong argument for treating any photos, taken on a ship, as PD, even if the sailor wasn't on-watch.

File:The Wire Issue01v6.pdf [3] less than 1 %

An article on endangered sea life swimmers might encounter has an illustration of conch, advising swimmers to avoid disturbing them, that uses an image from a conservation site

One of the arguments made here simply leapt out at me as completely wrong, specifically that about the PD status of photos taken by government employees. "When taken as part of their duties" specifically, explicitly, means that taking that image was a part of the persons assigned duties... that it was actually their job to take that photo. Personal photos taken while 'on duty' are not government works, they instead belong to the photographer, and not even the US government claims otherwise.
Only photos taken by government employees who were actually officially assigned the duty of taking photos...who were being paid to to so, as part of their job... are US Government works. The US Military often publishes images credited as 'courtesy photos' taken by servicemembers... they are personal, copyrighted photos that the creator has given permission to publish, and are not PD. Reventtalk 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote about at a bit of length on my talk page (as it's too lengthy for here) 'de minimis' clearly does not apply to the use of photographs being discussed here. If you don't understand why, please read what I wrote, because the argument that it does is grossly incorrect. Reventtalk 20:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While your comments are interesting, I think they are off-topic to a discussion of what measure of proprietary images we will allow in an otherwise PD document.
  • Please look at File:The Wire Issue01v4.pdf, specifically the lower right hand corner of page 9. Jamie Buckley, a visiting country musician, had cancelled a performance. The notice of cancellation includes a picture of him that takes about 1/80th of that page. That issue had 12 pages. So, this image Jamie Buckley, the only proprietary image in this issue, takes up 0.010416667 percent of the issue. Are you going to argue tthat issue 1 of volume 4 should be deleted because one ten thousandth of it is a proprietary image?

    No, of course you won't.

    Deciding on whether a rough calculation of the fraction of proprietary images we will agree don't make an entire issue deleteable is what I suggest we should be discussing here. I've argued under ten percent.

    That tenth anniversary issue, which had eight extra pages for remembrance of the attacks on 9-11, is the only issue that nominator has identified that had more than that ten percent. I think it is probably the only issue with more than ten percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs)

You have apparently completely missed the point. The copyrighted photos use here are not, by definition, de minimis. What percentage of the 'final work' consists of the problematic material is completely irrelevant. We do not 'allow proprietary images in an otherwise PD document' without compatible licensing, period, because they are copyright violations, period. You can't be 'a little bit pregnant.' Reventtalk 05:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best use of everybody's time

[edit]

Christian Ferrer reviewed the first 20 or so files that Jose listed. His or her comments are variations of agreements to delete, or variations of "probably OK". This contributor seems to be averaging being able to perform one review in about five minutes. Since one issue was published, every week, for 14 years, at that rate, it would take sixty hours to review every issue.

Sixty hours is a huge commitment of time.

In the discussion, above, I suggested that the issue that was published with extra pages to memorialize the 10th anniversay of 9-11, the one issue Jose found that contained many pages full of proprietary images, should have those pages blanked, rather than being deleted. Although I am not an expert, I believe gimp can do that.

Contributor Christian Ferrer should be aware that the first volumes of this publication lacked a regular feature in later volumes -- movie reviews, written by GIs, illustrated with a couple of proprietary movie images. I want them to know this, as they are going to find that none of the early issues, from early volumes, will have a proprietary image, while practically all issues from a later volume will have a one or two or three proprietary images illustrating a movie review.

If contributor Ferrer is prepared to spend hours, perhaps they would consider postponing their time commitment? If a decision is made that these issues shouldn't be retained, with the tiny admixture of proprietary images, perhaps contributor Ferrer would agree to use gimp, or some other appropriate tool, to replace the page with the movie image with a white box with an explanation as to why that page is missing? Geo Swan (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overly broad nomination, should have been withdrawn

[edit]

I think this nomination should have been withdrawn, since nominator, Josve05a, has acknowledged only actually checking a handful of these files, prior to making this nomination.

Hundreds of these files only contain DoD images, so they never should have been nominated.

I think a smaller nomination, of files that a nominator could have confidence were triggering their concern.

I uploaded these files. Uploading 700 or so files took me hundreds of hours. If they are all truly out of scope, or are all truly clearly not free enough to belong here, as is, no one would argue that they should be kept, as is, simply because I spent a long time uploading them. But, is it too much to ask, given the hundreds of hours to upload, that the files be individually checked, prior to nomination, so only those that genuinely triggered nominator's concern ended up being listed?

Christian Ferrer asserted that a very small, very simple, diagram on page 14 of File:The Wire Issue02v5.pdf. Well, this link is to a version of page 14 where I blanked out everything but that tiny image. It consumes about one percent of the real estate of that page, which is just one of fourteen pages. 99.9 percent of the file is PD.

Christian Ferrer reviewed about twice as many files as the nominator -- about 20 files. I want to respect the effort they put into doing so, but the example above is not the only one I have questions about. In this edit they wrote "unclear copyright statut of photos taken during free time p9". However, while the photographer took images of off-duty GIs, since it was her job to go that event, take photos, then write about, she was clearly on duty, and those images PD. Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe we can assume the photographer is doing his duty while the others soldier are in free time, it is indeed possible that the photojournalist was commissioned to cover some events that took place during free times. Free time for some don't means free time for all. However as said by Revent, you missed the point regarding the de minimis argument. By publishing here a photo or icon, in a PDF, we agree or we give permission that someone can extract a single image from the PDF and then can use this single image commercial purposes, the issue is that we have not this right, the screenshots/film posters are clearly not free, and we can not freely publish its here, and some icons clearly above TOO have also an unclear copyright statut from my point of view. The nomination must not be withdrawned. The only way is to check one by one all PDF, and delete or the affected pdf or to modify (create new versions) of the PDF without copyrighted content and then re-check the result, but it will be a very very big time work. But in any cases copyrighted content must not be freely published here, the exemple with the icon above is the perfect exemple, by zooming 3 or 4 time in the the page you can exctract/create a new 2000px wide file icon, I'm wonder how we can say it is de minimis. A pdf is a document and each parts of this document is a media and can have a copyright, a media can not be de minimis.
There is four ways:
  • All pdf are kept
 Oppose Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All pdf are deleted
  • Only the PDFs with copyrighted content are deleted (but that implies all have to be checked)
  • The PDFs with copyrighted content are modified so that we don't see the copyrighted content (but that implies all have to be checked, then modified, then rechecked)
Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin: Some of these files (as checked) are OK. Most of those checked are not, and as described they are less likely to be okay they farther you go down the list. The degree of effort involved in checking each one is not trivial, and that involved in checking the corpus is massive. The likelihood of anyone dedicating the amount of effort required to edit them to redact the problematic material.... it's not going to happen. Per COM:EVID, it is the responsibility of the uploader to demonstrate that the files are acceptable. The COM:PRP says we should delete works where there is any significant doubt. The only sane solution is to delete the files that have not been checked as 'okay', provide copies by email if he needs them, and allow him to re-upload files after he verifies that they are clean of copyrighted material that we cannot verify as licensed. Reventtalk 08:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am going to disagree with two suggestions you made, above. You seem to be suggesting that I failed in my obligations by recklessly uploading "problematic material". Years ago there were two challenges, to two individual articles, and those two discussions concluded the incidentally included movie images were de minimis. Given that, I am sure you can understand that your suggestion that I was reckless doesn't sit well with me.
At the first of those discussions the idea of blanking the movie images was discussed, and was seen as not necessary, because the images were seen as de minimis. If that discussion had concluded blanking was necessary, I would have blanked the movie images from every file, as I uploaded it.
If it is concluded that, as of 2016, the movie images, and the occasional use of wire images, need to be blanked, please don't claim you know no one would make the effort to blank the images that trigger concern today. I spent hundreds of hours uploading these files, cropping images of historic interest from them, and otherwise curating the material. I would put in that effort -- if the community decides it is necessary. Geo Swan (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I think you were reckless. I don't think so, I didn't say so, and I did not intend to imply it. I apologize for any perceived insult.
I do think you have grossly misunderstood the concept of 'de minimis', as illustrated by your arguments here, and that it raises major concerns about these files 'en masse'. You would by far not be the only person to misunderstand it in the same way, however.
If you are now addressing the copyright concerns with these by redacting them that is great (and thank you), but the older revisions that include the copyrighted images still need to be deleted. It is my concern about keeping the ones not yet fixed, that might take you weeks or months to get to, that is why I think they should be deleted in the interim. Reventtalk 03:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]

Copyright issues apart, I don't understand the purpose of uploading all these files here. I could imagine to use one or two to illustrate an article, but I don't see the need to have them all. They would be in scope if there is at least a tentative to use them on Wikisource, but is this ever going to happen? Is there any likelyhood that they wouldn't be easily available at the source? (pay wall, etc.). If not, I don't see any reason to keep them as a reference. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've used these files as sources for hundreds of images of historic value (see Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images). I've ported articles published in The Wire to wikisource. Does this answer your concern as to whether they are in scope? Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - I have checked a random set of files (not all 722) and all of them had copyright issues, even the ones that had been striped already by uploader. It's not managable and not reasonable to keep all those files online until somebody fixes them over the next few years. Better first fix some of them and then reupload them. As for the de minimis argument, this is not going to work of course. Imagine a newspaper publishing a copyrighted picture in a corner of page 15. If they would tell to a complaining copyright holder that the picture covers less than 1% of the newspaper, would they get away with it? I don't think so. Also for the picture made by their own people, it's very doubtful that all of them were shot as a part of their official duty, so probably a part of them are not PD either. --Jcb (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_on_User:Josve05a/The_Wire_v._Stock_images&oldid=218314113"