Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 May 26

< May 25	May 27 >

May 26

File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Consensus is the image is replaceable by a free image. The thought of most of the participants is that although the image may not be easily replaceable, it is replaceable. Therefore the image fails WP:NFCC#1 and can be replaced. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An image used under a claim of fair use depicting spectra of different classification of stars and sciency stuff that I don't understand. It was tagged as replaceable fair use by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) and disputed by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), who said "I do not think that 16 spectra can be easily replaced. All published spectra are copyrighted." This seems sufficiently complicated that it should have an FFD, not a unilateral decision, so that people who understand such things can explain it.

There are at least two issues to consider: (1) are the spectra themselves subject to copyright? This seems odd, but for a while (until the Supreme Court struck it down 9-0 in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.), you could patent naturally occurring gene sequences, so courts rule odd things sometimes. (2) If the spectra themselves are not subject to copyright, does this image pass the threshold of creativity? If I create a simple representation of a mathematical or scientific reality where there was no creative thought process involved, then there is no copyright.

So the four possibilities are (a) the spectra are copyrighted, any representation of them would be a derivative work of that copyrighted work, but we should be able to make a WP:FREER version; (b) the spectra are copyrighted, but this representation is a non-creative representation of the underlying reality and so there is no need for a WP:FREER version; (c) the spectra are not copyrighted and we can make a free content version; (d) the spectra are not copyrighted and this representation is PD-ineligible. B (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was nothing to do whether the spectra were PD-ineligible, but due to the claim of fair use. There are PD spectra available from before 1923 in the US. Also photos taken in Australia prior to 1955 are public domain, and US certainly recognises these if taken before 1946. Commons is not deleting those prior to 1955 any more either. There would also be crown copyright expired images available for stellar spectra. (1964 and before). These may all take a bit of work to invert and colour and fatten up to a nice looking bar, but the point is that with a bit of work this cold be assembled from public domain sources.
On the topic of copyright of spectra, someone else could also make a new spectrum of the same source, and it could look very very similar to the previously taken one. Only differing in noise, linear shift or minor spectral line changes to to star-spots or variability, eclipsing etc. It would be very hard for the earlier spectroscopist who had a similar image to cl,aim copyright over the new image. But I suppose the point is whether the practice is for people to ask for permission to use spectra (answer seems to be yes) so there is an assumption that they are subject to copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- @Graeme Bartlett:Thank you for replying and this is where I don't know enough about the science to make a judgment call and so I wanted to bring it here. Consider this scenario: there is a mathematical formula that defines the gradient to the right. We would all agree that neither the list of color values nor the gradient generated by those values is subject to copyright because it is not creative. If I understand what you are saying correctly, the image we are considering is a different scenario because there was skill involved, correct? The standard for creativity is that if two people set out to do the same thing, would their works be indistinguishable from each other. And I think from what you are saying, the answer is no, their works would not be indistinguishable, and so this image is copyrightable. So then as a follow-up question, what spectra are needed to show here in order for the reader to understand the topic? Is it sufficient to show old spectra or could you not understand this without seeing the more modern, still subject to copyright, spectra? --B (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the legalities and I don't know the genetics science well, but I think there's substantial work involved in just identifying a gene sequence, and that effort is what makes the discovery itself copyrightable in genetics. Anyone with a cheap telescope and a spectrograph can go out and (re)discover the spectrum of any of these stars, so the spectra themselves aren't reasonably subject to copyright. And even if they were, the basic properties of the spectra of each type of star have been known since the 19th century, so the copyright on the spectrum itself would have long since expired. But I think that almost certainly any particular representation of the spectrum, and probably any particular measurement of the spectrum of a particular star (irrespective of the representation), would be subject to copyright.
Old spectra would be fine for demonstrating the basic properties of each stellar classification. However, the detailed descriptions in Stellar classification#Spectral types are probably only reasonably illustrated by a fairly modern image. eg The sentence "O stars have dominant lines of absorption and sometimes emission for He II lines, prominent ionized (Si IV, O III, N III, and C III) and neutral helium lines, strengthening from O5 to O9, and prominent hydrogen Balmer lines, although not as strong as in later types." is talking about many of the faint bumps in the spectra evident in the image we're discussing; an older replacement image would not show the detail necessary to visualize what the text is talking about. (Of course, the non-free use rationale should explain this need. The current rationale, "OBAFGKM", is not a reasonable purpose of use.)
(Putting on my practicing professional astronomer hat.) This is, in practice, not something that astronomers think about much; once a set of data is published, it's normally considered available for anyone to use with a citation, although it's quite rare for astronomers to bother with a proper license. The major journals have two different sets of licenses: some journals have authors retain the copyright, while others sign the copyright over to the society that publishes the journal. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can find some professional astronomers that do own copyright that can release their images for use. Perhaps there are also amateurs that have the equipment to make spectra. But may be the can only spectrograph the brighter kinds of stars. Also if NASA has published spectra then they will likely be public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WT:AST That depends on your threshold of 'replaceable'. In principle a user could do so, provided that they a) have access to a large (for amateurs) telescope, probably 24-inch or above, b) have a medium-resolution spectrograph which can be attached to it (beyond most amateurs), c) can conceivably observe stars of all those spectral types for sufficient time and d) have the necessary data analysis and graphical skills to convert the raw data into a useful diagram. I think that's pushing things - it's certainly beyond the ability of most amateur astronomy groups. I suppose a university-level observatory might be able to do it as a teaching exercise. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to my earlier comments: I find it unlikely that suitable data exist in the public domain for someone to generate the figure without new observations. They would need to be uniformly obtained by the same instrument, of a suitable resolution and signal-to-noise, cover the right range of spectral types and be in a useful machine-readable format. Even if the data are available, you would still need an expert (probably a professional astronomer) to do it. Certainly if the file is kept it needs a better rationale. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to get a better consensus on the status of this image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again. TLSuda (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost fifty years ago (in a pre-computer environment) I photographed and analysed stellar spectra as part of a holiday job. Considerable technical skill was involved (by the professional astronomers rather than by me at the telescope) but I would say that no creativity was involved at all. And now all this would be entirely automated, I suppose. However, I wonder if there is some slight creativity in deciding which stars to include in the diagram although the decision to arrange them in order of spectral type, one above the other, and with wavelengths aligned would seem to be "obvious" and lacking in originality. Where the creativity is greatest, I suppose, is in the decision to include the three spectra at the bottom where certainly a scientific judgement has been involved and possibly a slightly creative one. Of course in the real world there is no breach of copyright but here we are not in the real world. Thincat (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thincat: are there any spectra that you worked with 50 years ago that were published without a copyright notice pre-1978, and hence, the copyright, if it ever existed, lapsed upon publication without complying with the formalities? From the totality of everything that has been said, I'm inclined to think that WP:NFCC#1 is not satisfied - the requirement isn't that it is easy, only that it is possible and certainly the existence of a Wikipedian who has done it before - you - means it is possible. I'm not 100% convinced one way or the other as to whether or not the image is copyrightable at all, but I think if it is copyrighted, then it's not valid fair use under Wikipedia's rules. Certainly, though, if you could point out a usable version that is now public domain, or if you have any contact with your then-employer and could arrange for a release of one under an acceptable license, that would be the best possible alternative. Is that within the realm of possibilities? --B (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think any spectral images I worked on would have been published (they were analysed) and any publications by my colleagues would most likely have been in the UK and so URAA would chime in. Anyway, I'm as sure as I can be that individual spectra aren't copyrightable at all and so being old, etc, is irrelevant. Although I think these sorts of deletions are seriously inappropriate (our display of this image is highly educational, entirely lawful and it is merely against some people's view of WMF/WP policy), I can't help but think that someone on WP could assemble ten or so spectra and line them up with a nice rainbow background and produce a completely free image. So, to that extent, I can see the logic in the WP:NFCC#1 argument because there might have been a slight, slight trace of creativity in the assembly of the image. Thincat (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Chijioke with Minister of Finance.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable low quality image...all key content is out-of-focus. Have File:ChijiokeU in 2011.jpg as a substantially higher quality image of the key person; the combination here with another blurred person doesn't seem to have added value. We also have:

File:Chijioke with Nigerian Minister of Finance.jpg

which is cropped down to focus on the key individuals if that aspect has value. But I'm actually including it here as FFD nom for the same lack-of-quality/lack-of-value as the original. DMacks (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SkinTrade.Lundgren.Jaa.fight-scene.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in the plot section of Skin Trade (film) against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:FILMNFI, plot summaries are not critical commentary and do not need to be illustrated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SkinTrade.ProductionSet.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in the production section of Skin Trade (film), where there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. If the image is to show the two actors in the film, that is already accomplished by the film poster in the infobox thereby failing WP:NFCC#3. Aspects (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.