Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Truffle-vanilla

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 uploaded by Truffle-vanilla (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Files by various authors from http://redbook.az. Uploaded as CC-BY-SA 4.0 but I can't find any mention of a license at the source website (or anything else regarding copyrights). Seems to be a governmental project, so we might be able to keep them if some kind of "it's free by default" was involved? Otherwise we'd need a written permission from the copyright owners via COM:OTRS. Somebody may also want to have a look at the earlier uploads by this user, which are marked as "own work" but are suspiciously similar to this batch (sorry, don't have time for this right now).

El Grafo (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Images originally nominated by El Grafo

32 files.

Following files added by seb26

[edit]

Last updated: 17:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed to be taken from Redbook, almost all with accompanying species name

The following are from Redbook, have a URL already, but were uploaded by Truffle-vanilla after I finished researching. (seb26 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

204 files.

Found to be copyright violations from sources that ARE NOT redbook

5 files.

Unknown source: Reverse searched but could not find an exact image match on Redbook, on Plantarium.ru, or anywhere else online

22 files.

Discussion

[edit]
  •  Comment on remaining files uploaded by user. I added the remaining files above. Some files don't show up in Google reverse search, but do match redbook.az when you use its internal search with the filename or species. I found at least one that was not sourced from Redbook but another site, in Russian, with a copyright label. I will go through them all to review if they came from Redbook or another site. seb26 (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, officially about to die if I see another photo of a plant. I have been through all of the user's contributions except for section I marked "not yet investigated". In summary: most are from Redbook, but not all. The scientific name in Latin alphabet is often the key to assisting find that species in Redbook because I noticed some differences between what User:Truffle-vanilla wrote and what Redbook had as the Azerbaijanian name, which meant that Redbook would say there was simply "no result", unless you entered the exact one it had – better results came with scientific name. Also the scientific name is probably key to these files' integration into Commons because it'll be the primary category. I tried to add as many as I could from my manual searching on Redbook but was inconsistent toward the beginning. Redbook's site does not seem to have unique URLs for the entries. seb26 (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Some updates: I've done as much investigation as I can now.
    There are 229 images sourced from Redbook, 22 with an unknown source, and 5 which are from copyrighted sources that are not Redbook. Also it turns out there is a way to link to Redbook entries by URL: for example, http://redbook.az/?options=project&id=Georgian%20box. The ID parameter accepts the Azerbaijani vernacular name, the English vernacular name, or the Latin species name.
    Truffle-vanilla (talk · contribs) has continued uploading photos during this deletion discussion. I have posted a note on his talk page asking if he can pause the uploading for now. I suspect he may not have seen or been alarmed by the deletion discussion. seb26 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    232 sourced from Redbook. Truffle continues to upload, I contacted User:Interfase for assistance with communication. seb26 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    236 sourced from Redbook. I posted on COM:AN/U about Truffle's uploads. seb26 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment on copyright status: I think you may be correct El Grafo, about the "free by default" idea. Point 1, Redbook.az does appear to be an online version of a collaboration of the environment ministry and the science ministry to create documentation about flora in Azerbaijan as part of biological diversity preservation. Point 2, Azerbaijan copyright law says that official documents of the state are not eligible for copyright (Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Azerbaijan. Point 3, their English version of the About page, I have taken this excerpt from paragraphs 9-11 (middle of page):
According to article No. 1.1.3 of decree the publication of II edition of “Red book” has been intended.
According to international practice, one of the effective ways of protecting species is the creation of “Red book”. Even in 1977, Azerbaijan Republic made a decision on the creation of “Red book” for the protection of geo-fund of flora and fauna of Azerbaijan.
At present, “Red book” of Azerbaijan Republic is carried out according to the law No. 675-İQ dated on June 4, 1999 of Azerbaijan Republic “On animal world” and the law No. 678-İQ dated on June 8, 1999 of Azerbaijan Republic “On protection of environment”. According to existing legislation, animal and plant species that live in natural condition in country’s territory and which considered rare and have the threat of extinct of generation are specially protected and entered into “Red book” of Azerbaijan Republic. “Red book” of Azerbaijan Republic, being official document, reflects in itself the condition of animal and plant species (subspecies, populations), their existence and protection measures in all territory of Azerbaijan Republic, as well as, section of the Caspian Sea (lake) that belongs to Azerbaijan Republic.'
My interpretation of the above is that because the Red Book is mandated by Azerbaijan law, it is a work of government documentation and is not protected by copyright. I think this could be sufficient without OTRS permission but I await the insight of others. Naturally, if we were to accept this interpretation, all of the files would need to have their license changed from the incorrect CC 'own work' designation, to {{PD-Azerbaijan}}, but in this case I would suggest a new template be created so that we can maintain, for example, source links to the original red book pages for that species. They would also need to be integrated into the category system because the ones that I clicked on lacked categories. seb26 (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read the English text of the Azerbaijani copyright law (from this source) again with better daytime eyes and I am concerned that the definition of government works is limited to 'documents' and 'texts'. But this really depends on whether or not the entire "work" of the Red Book can be considered a document holistically. The above excerpt really does seem to imply that with its reference to the redbook being an "official document" and as being "carried out according to the law No.675-IQ [...]". seb26 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion and COM:PCP unless we have clear evidence that this Redbook can be treated as official document. --Sealle (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Truffle-vanilla&oldid=244879035"