Commons:Deletion requests/NTD banknotes

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.

NTD banknotes

[edit]

Per COM:CUR Taiwan, Taiwan Central Bank doesn't allow free use of NTD banknotes. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As COM:CUR Taiwan stated, the NTD banknotes are protected by copyright according to the OTRS ticket in 2014. However, the "Government Website Open Information Announcement" which allowed its data to be used by the public (i.e. {{GWOIA}}) was legislated in 2017. Maybe we have to check again to make sure if they are still copyrighted after 2017? -Peacearth（talk） 12:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@和平奮鬥救地球: As I remember you are an OTRS member so do you think you can follow up on that ticket and ask them for an update? --Wcam (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have permission to view that ticket. In fact, I was only given the permission to access the 'info' queue. -Peacearth（talk） 05:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have sent another email to the institution above to make an enquiry. However, that ticket was created in 2014 and their Government Website Open Data Announcement is available before it, I'm assuming these files deserve to be deleted based on current information. Sorry for the new files. --Hamish (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what information? I see no reason given. Ythlev (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the information in the ticket mentioned above. I can see it. --Hamish (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

--Wcam (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following files:

--Wcam (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcam: Can I also nominate Taiwanese coins here? (e.g. File:TWD50 Taiwan 台灣 中華民國 50元 硬幣 Republic of China June 2018 Lnv2 01.jpg) Or I should file another DR? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is OTRS? The central bank explicitly states that its published material can be freely used. Ythlev (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ythlev: What is OTRS? See this link. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it. What does an email conversation have to do with copyright? Ythlev (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COM:CUR Taiwan. --Wcam (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the email indicated files here should be deleted. --Hamish (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what? Ythlev (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this piece of information. In short, these bank notes themselves are PD, but they may be derivative works of non-free works (because of e.g. the photographs used). In absence of free licenses for the underlying works, per COM:PRP we should not keep these files. --Wcam (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Taiwanese copyright law professor 章忠信 offers mostly the same interpretation: [1]. --Wcam (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a professor while the above is an official interpretation. Neither pertain to the these images however because they are licensed for free use by the central bank. Any copyrighted images they may contain are assumed to be given permission by the original creator, otherwise the central bank would have broken the law. Ythlev (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the central bank obtained permission only for them to use the contents on the money, but not for us Wikimedia Commons and our downstream reusers especially for commercial purposes. COM:DW says derivative works of non-free content are not allowed here on Commons. --Wcam (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the central bank gave permission for them (the notes) to be used freely per the Government Website Open Data Announcement. COM:DW says derivative works of non-free content are not allowed here on Commons. Whether the "content" is free or not is unknown but it is assumed to be free. This kind of assumption has to be made otherwise nothing can be uploaded. File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg is PD because it is from NASA, but how do we know the person who took the photo actually works from NASA and took it as part of the job? We have to assume that's how NASA got it instead of hacking the Soviets or something. Ythlev (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to [2], photos used for the bank notes are taken by third parties like a staff member from a biological conservative agency and a newspaper photographer. These are licensed works and not "work for hire". --Wcam (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand my analogy. They are licensed work yes, but they are licensed under a free license on the reasonable assumption that the central bank does not violate copyright laws. Ythlev (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ythlev: Citation needed for your they are licensed under a free license on the reasonable assumption that the central bank does not violate copyright laws. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment@Wcam, Ythlev, and だ＊ぜ: So the problem is that if they are "partly copyrighted", are those copyrighted parts meet our De minimis policy? It seems unclear that how De minimis rules are defined in Chinese-speaking areas. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the issue. Refer to my comment above. If something is legitimately in PD or under free license, everything it contains is reasonably assumed to be free. Ythlev (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Ythlev (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. According to Taiwan copyright laws Art. 6, “A creation adapted from one or more pre-existing works is a derivative work and shall be protected as an independent work. Protection of a derivative work shall not affect the copyright in the pre-existing work.”, The copyright of derivative work shall not affect the copyright of original work. Furthermore, the Government Website Open Information Announcement just covers the image of NTD banknotes on their website but doesn't cover the NTD banknotes itself. Thank you. --SCP-2000 06:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the Government Website Open Information Announcement just covers the image of NTD banknotes on their website but doesn't cover the NTD banknotes itself. The files in question are images of banknotes, not the banknotes themselves. The copyright of derivative work shall not affect the copyright of original work. This means the copyright status of the original work is not affected by the status of the derivative work. However the original work is free itself, not affected. Ythlev (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the original work is free itself you need to show evidence for that otherwise according to COM:PRP and COM:EVID we cannot accept it. Your NASA image example does not draw analogy because it is entirely created by NASA employee on their official duty (work for hire) and is not a derivative work. --Wcam (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it is entirely created by NASA employee How do you know that? Evidence? Ythlev (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ythlev: That's per CFR Title 14, especially § 1203.202:
“ (b) All NASA employees are responsible for bringing to the attention of the Chairperson of the NISPC any information security problems in need of resolution, any areas of interest wherein information security guidance is lacking, and any other matters likely to impede achievement of the objectives prescribed in this section. ”

By the way, NASA isn't really a good comparable example on this topic, you need to give us *Non-United States* example, to which a government institution's work can be itself Public Domain around the world, even without attributions, signatures and/or other hints of potential authors. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: How do you know the earth photo is actually created by NASA? Maybe NASA stole it from the soviets. How about you provide citation saying that's impossible instead of constantly pinging me. Ythlev (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ythlev: Ec. Well, if you can tell me where are examples of non-NASA employees created earth images but are even licensed as {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, tell me here, I need investigations one-per-one for them. That said, only files that are entirely created, published and licensed by NASA employees can use PD-USGov-NASA, foreign space authorities/companies should always refrain from that template unless for barely-seen special cases. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
files that are entirely created, published and licensed by NASA employees. How do I know the file satisfies? There is no signature of a NASA employee. Is it uploaded from a NASA IP? Ythlev (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ythlev: This question should better ask users that edited it, not here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you this then: what is the point of the open data announcement? Ythlev (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamish: I think this question is what you should answer now, as you said above that you sent another email to the institution. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ythlev: Also, please withdraw your unfair {{Keep}} by <s></s>, since another OTRS ticket already judged all NTDs as not suitable for GWOIA and/or GWODA. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what OTRS is, and until I see the relevant arguments, it has no bearing on my stance. I am muting you, so stop pinging me. Ythlev (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply wrong. If you go to a movie theater and record a movie with your phone and release the recording under CC-BY (you can legitimately do that), it does not make the movie free. Read COM:DW. --Wcam (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to a movie theatre and record a movie with your phone and release the recording without permission, you've violated copyright law, which is not legitimate. If the theatre announces that you are allowed to, and the rights owner does not contest it, then it is reasonable to assume you are allowed to. For an agency like NASA or a central bank, the assumption is even more reasonable. Ythlev (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From COM:DW: By taking a picture with a copyrighted cartoon character on a t-shirt as its main subject, for example, the photographer creates a new, copyrighted work (the photograph), but the rights of the cartoon character's creator still affect the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist. --Wcam (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. To make the point again, the bank notes contain photographs created by third party creators, and there is no evidence that the are released under a free license. According to various Common policies such as COM:DW, COM:PRP and COM:EVID, we should not keep these images. --Wcam (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know they are created by third party creators? Ythlev (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ythlev: And how do you believe that they are created by staffs of Taiwanese Governments? Without evidences on either ways, we have to judge if those images are suitable under {{PD-anon-expired}}, otherwise they can't be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, maybe they're in the Public Domain in Taiwan, but not in the United States. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Without evidence we have to judge that the creators allow they work to be freely used, otherwise an agency like a central bank would not have release it under a free licence. Ythlev (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ythlev: So under opinion, contents that are having no indicates of e.g. "© XXX All rights reserved" should by default be judged as public domain, instead of copyrighted by authors? If yes then I will continue related topics at COM:VP. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. The assumption has to be reasonable. Assuming central banks don't break laws is reasonable. Ythlev (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The assumption by Ythlev is not the only assumption. It could also be seen as -
    1. Officials created all/some of the works, where such works shall be seen as official documents and are in PD; or/and
    2. The government requested some artists to create all/some of the works, and in the contract of creation, the copyrights belong to the government, where also are in PD; or/and,
    3. Artists created all/some of the works with or without a contract, and later on, granted the government to use the works (no matter it is merely allowed to use on banknotes or not), where artists still held the copyright except for the condition of artists passed away for at least 50 years and the copyrights expired.
    Without more detailed information, I would like to ask to temporarily delete, in order not to infringe, and check the copyright information from either the ROC government or the artists. --だ＊ぜ (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to do the check? The file has been uploaded for four years. I see no issue of infringing. Ythlev (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ythlev: Unless if you read [3] and [4] carefully, I will not answer any of your additional "why" anymore. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete They aren't public domain, they are copyrighted by Central bank of Taiwan. --117.136.54.39 00:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I endorse the nominator @Liuxinyu970226: said, they aren't free licensed, Ythlev, just to let you know that zhwiki discussion already pointed you as someone's sockpuppet, or at least meatpuppet, pleade don't be a jerk. --117.136.54.25 00:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
117.136.54.39 and 117.136.54.25 huh? Who is the sockpuppet? I have a legitimate alternate account. Go jerk off elsewhere. Ythlev (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To above all: an officer from the Department of Issuing in Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan) told me the GWODA DOES NOT apply to the use of all the pictures of the NTD banknotes and coins. I'm very sorry that I bring this here late. --Hamish (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: As above. --Hamish (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Details for that email is available at ticket:2020051710002624. --Hamish (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The email is not available. Ythlev (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because that's only available for the OTRS members. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Central Bank is not in charge of interpreting the law, only courts have the authority. Ythlev (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ythlev: You're wrong, they have rights to interpret it, at least Zhang Zhongxin is what I must likely familiar, a famous Taiwanese copyright professor that lead all WMF's OTRS mailing lists to not have ways to veto him. regards. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep These files were found on the central bank's website. From Government Website Open Data Announcement:

“ I. In order to facilitate better utilization by the general public of the information on this website, all of the Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan)(herein known as CBC)’s publicly posted information and materials that are protected under copyright provisions may be utilized by the public without cost in a non-exclusive, reauthorization-available manner. The users may, without restriction on time and place, reproduce, adapt, edit, publicly transmit, or utilize in other ways, and develop various products or services (herein known as derivations). This authorization will not be retracted hereafter, and the users do not have to acquire any written or other types of authorization from the CBC. However, when using it, the users should acknowledge the source. ”
I consider this is a reasonable use. --Yisinc (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ythlev and Yisinc: Just note: There are files listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:New Taiwan Dollar which are successfully deleted. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yisinc: It had just been told that GWODA does not apply in these works, in this case, pursuant to the aforementioned text per an officer from Central Bank of the ROC, given from Hamish. Regards, だ☆ぜ (Dasze) 14:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what Ythlev must know, if he has oppose comments to the second case, welcome to send his 3rd OTRS e-mail to contest it, by just saying "I oppose your opinion because I don't know OTRS", this user is clearly-than-god doing things that are out of our project scope. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Hamish. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/NTD_banknotes&oldid=814771373"