Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Henry Segrave n041938.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.

Image:Henry_Segrave_n041938.jpg

Dubious copyright. This has been discussed before. Florida Photographic Collection claims that these images have a free copyright, but they did not take the pictures themself. They are assigning copyright for images that they did not take themself. There is no evidence that photographers signed a release. Royalbroil 12:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By "dubious copyright", I assume this to mean that you accept that terms of the Florida licence as being acceptable for free use on Wikimedia, but that you question their bona fides in being able to grant it.

On that basis, we would have to delete most of wikicommons! Wikimedia has almost no proof of anything in terms of verifying whether licences apparently granted by third parties are genuine, to this new level of proof requirement. Now as I understand Wikimedia's policy here (please correct me if there's a suitable reference) we are not required to prove each of these in turn, but we accept the word of reputable sources claiming that licences apply. I consider the Florida State Archives to be such a reputable source. Wikimedia's contributors are required to act reasonably and to apply policies carefully, but we're not required to investigate beyond this. Is there any evidence to suggest that the Florida archive's claims are not justified?
Andy Dingley 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The disclaimer on the website says "Some of the images may be protected by copyright. Persons accessing these images assume full responsibility for their use and understand and agree that the State Library and Archives of Florida is not responsible or liable for any claim, loss, or damage arising from the use of these images."[1] They are admitting that they don't own the copyright to all of the images. Royalbroil 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not admitting that, this is just a boilerplate disclaimer. When contacted they confirmed that they're not aware of any copyright issues, but the disclaimer is there because disclaimers breed and are hard to avoid in such organisations. Of course there may be copyright issues with anything (and on wikimedia too), that's why we have policies on how to respond if such issues are identified or raised in the future. There's no reason to react to a potential issue that hasn't happened.

As to the second point, then Wikimedia already accepts responsibility for Wikimedia's potential mis-use (it can't very well do otherwise) and part of that is to have reasonable and robust procedures for take-down of anything infringing. This is our defence against any hypothetical future copyright issue, not blaming their source. Andy Dingley 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Please review Commons:Licensing. "The Wikimedia Commons accepts only media

• that are explicitly freely licensed, or
• that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work". This image is not explicitly freely license - it is implicitly at the most. It is not public domain in the U.S. Royalbroil 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PD isn't the issue here, nor is Wikimedia policy. No-one is disputing those, the question is solely about the interpretation of "the Florida licence" and whether it's a free licence or not. Now a licence that clearly states:

"Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given."

is to my mind trying very hard to be a free licence, as we understand the term in the Wikimedia context, and is compliant with the constraints expressed by {{CC-by-sa}}.

So what's the stumbling block? Are we agreed that it's solely owing to their disclaimer and the phrases "Some of the images may be protected by copyright." and "Persons accessing these images assume full responsibility for their use and understand and agree that the State Library and Archives of Florida is not responsible or liable for any claim, loss, or damage arising from the use of these images." ?

Now I'm assuming that they're all protected by copyright, and that their copyright is subject to "the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images.", which as stated above is compatible with our need for a free licence. These two are not exclusive. For a donation to a government-funded archive, it's pretty much what I'd expect their licensing to require. Government funding of archives, particularly in the USA, isn't generally too keen on being a no-cost escrow service for a commercial photographer who wants to retain the exploitation rights.
Andy Dingley 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't know FPC's donation agreement and more than I do, so how can you know that the photographer has donated them under a free license? The FPC doesn't reveal their donation criteria (with respect to a free license). Would you try to find it out from them? How can you assign a Creative Commons type of a free license when there are other types of free licenses? Royalbroil 03:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the terms of their donation agreement, but equally I have no reason to disbelieve the statement they do make, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." Unusually for this thread, when a government archive tells me that I'm permitted to use their content I see no problem in doing so, and I'm happy to believe that they've acted correctly on their part such that they're in a position to do so.

No one (post-the Florida archive themselves) is "assigning a free licence to this content", merely pointing out that Wikimedia's definition of "free" is based on CC-by-sa (used to be GFDL, but there was a policy shift) and that the Florida licence is in accord with the requirements of this. Andy Dingley 09:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The terms of the donation agreement is the key to deciding the outcome to this discussion. You need to prove to everyone's satisifaction that the agreement allows free use, plus what definition of free use (CC, GDFL, PD, etc.). I hope that other people come across this discussion and give their opinion. Royalbroil 15:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, what? "Wikimedia's definition of "free" is based on CC-by-sa (used to be GFDL, but there was a policy shift)"? I'm not sure where you get that from. Our definition of free is based on simple principles (freely re-usable by anyone for any purpose, with or without modifications), not on any one license in particular. Just clarifying. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Deleted. Forrester 18:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)