- File:Phillipbrutus.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain, discussion on my talk page, etc. --Elvey (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Federicaswilson.jpg#File:Federicaswilson.jpg <sic>. Please don't take this request if you don't have the time to review the evidence. The current situation (which has been the case for months) is a bunch of directly conflicting decisions. Mike Godwin stated that the Foundation has no official stance on this, according to Moonriddengirl. Here's how I see it: If Mike felt the use was permissible, he'd take the stance he took, just to be on the safe side. If Mike felt the use was NOT permissible, he'd say so plainly. So either he has no opinion (highly unlikely), or he felt the use was permissible, IMO. Some of these are on commons, others on en. --Elvey (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own deletion. Our standards are not "it's probably PD", "the copyright holder won't care", or "the image is all over the internet anyway"; they are "verifiably free". Your analysis is one way of looking at it; the other is "we think it might be OK but are waiting for the DMCA notice". In simple terms, if we can't be sure the image is free (and there's no fair use claim), we delete. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your accusations (bolded above) are inappropriate for several reasons - including being insulting and deceptive - they are a gross misrepresentation of my views and analysis. I suggest you retract.--Elvey (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm sorry that you were insulted and felt my message was inappropriate. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. Who are you alleging [has those views/supports those standards] if not me? --Elvey (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just general terms that I've seen thrown about at FFDs. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query—Why do you feel the image was covered by Template:PD-FLGov, Elvey? Please supply your evidence.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - firstly, I'm unconvinced that if Mike Goodwin says that he doesn't have an opinion, we should interpret that as the equivalent of saying it's been approved. Secondly, if the Commons and Wikipedia evolve meaningfully different approaches, that's something were going to have to live with. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean Mike Godwin, I presume. I hope and believe that Commons and Wikipedia editors are smart enough not to do that, but I see your point. Do we really want to be in a situation where it's appropriate to modify the guidelines about what to put where based on differing understandings of the law by the two user bases? I sure hope that's a last resort. --Elvey (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—You say it implies the work was "created by" the Florida Government, but actually I'm not convinced of that at all. "Used by" the Florida Government, yes, but "created by" does not seem a reasonable inference. Also, the pdf you link is rather clearly talking about software rather than images. Could you elaborate further on how this goes together?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This remark was addressed to Phil Knight. Elvey's response between Phil Knight's and mine is a later interpolation, and when I wrote this, Phil Knight's was the remark immediately above.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just found the edit. It did not follow the indentation convention that would have indicated it was addressed to PhilKnight.--Elvey (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Do I? Sure. Actually, the pdf I linked to is NOT not talking about images. The large relevant parts -i.e. the bulk of the legal discussions and references are about Florida copyright and all media with respect to public records public domain amendment and statutes. Please take another look! BTW, your sig is illegible to me. I see black on black.--Elvey (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The pdf linked has a summary commencing "Under Florida law, data processing software is a public record." so does appear to be focussed on that, regardless of if the discussion surrounds broader law concerning general media, it still focuses on that area. For me it doesn't follow that it will automatically cover all relevant law related to images. From my perspective I see the following:
- Mike Godwin takes no position - assumption Mike Godwin thinks it's fine.
- The image appears on a Florida Government website - assumption the Florida government created the image, and therefore the copyright becomes subject to the appropriate laws on that.
- This document is about data processing but does so with reference to general law on media produced by the Florida government - assumption the discussion covers all relevant law/angles for all media not just the focus of the document.
- A final assumption which also appears to be being made is that Mike Godwin's opinion about legality from the wikimedia foundations point of view and the acceptability for inclusion on any given project are directly related, frequently they aren't. I could suggest an alternate view on Mike's lack of position in this matter is that he think's legally we'd be safe using it, that however doesn't mean that (a) it'd be because the image is effectively PD (a fair use claim say) or (b) that fits with the projects non-free content guidelines which isn't primarily a legal issue --82.7.40.7 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could all discussion participants please mention any relevant legal expertise they have, and whether they've read the relevant constitutional amendment?--Elvey (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the relevance is? Or do you think this is some sort of credential waving contest? (Not that it'd be smart to just take a set of anonymous or pseudo-anonymous claims of expertise that seriously anyway, if it pleases you please believe me to have any level of legal expertise inferior to your own which I presume although undeclared here you believe to be significant.) As S Marshall sums up above You say it implies the work was "created by" the Florida Government, but actually I'm not convinced of that at all. "Used by" the Florida Government, yes, but "created by" does not seem a reasonable inference. - without resolving that the issue as to copyright status of Florida Government created works is potentially just a sideshow. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Credentials are not relevant to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AGAIN, where do I say "it implies the work was "created by" the Florida Government"?--Elvey (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No policy requires it, agreed. Expertise is relevant to me; I have given added deference to editors who have indicated they have relevant experience, for example, hence the question. No one has answered the second question either. I'm aware that Wikipedia is not its predecessor (i.e. no experts...) I can ask people to answer; editors are free to not answer, and not tell me if they read the relevant constitutional amendment.--Elvey (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was asked to weigh in on this, though I'm afraid I'm not going to shed much light. First, it's true that Mike said that the Wikimedia Foundation has no official stance. User:Elvey's interpretation of what that means is possible. It could also simply mean that since no one had officially complained, Mike didn't feel the need to investigate the case and has no opinion. And even if he did mean that he thought it was okay, I don't think we can base our decisions on guessing that. I think "no official position" means it's up to us. I myself went hands off on the question after that communication and given the closure of the TfD for Template:FLGovernment as "keep." I will admit, though, that I remain uneasy about the template, which might be interpreted as an "official stance" by our users, who may rely on it in placing material here that could later see them in trouble if it turns out we're wrong. We also have the complication that apparently Florida can copyright some of its governmental works, and I have no idea how to determine which ones they have. In short, the whole situation seems messy to me, and the fact that we have no official stance is going to lead to contradictory decisions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought folks would want to know that you wrote "The short story is that if it's from a Florida "gov" domain, it's probably okay from a legal standpoint. If the state of Florida ever requests that we remove it, we will." (on your talk page).--Elvey (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was my opinion based on a contributor's asking about removing text from an article and I don't think it has bearing on this discussion, which is about restoring something as "safe" that has already been deleted as "unsafe." That's a rather more active step. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Sorry if you felt misrepresented. I'm thinking my hopes of consistency are unrealistic. --Elvey (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel misrepresented; I can see why you might have expected a different position. (Though I hope you didn't invite my input on the basis of that.) I'm not comfortable recommending that people add material or restore material to the project that is clearly marked "copyright" unless I myself am certain that it isn't. I'm not hunting it down and removing it, but I'm not going to be cavalier about something that could land contributors in legal troubles, either. This material may well be public domain based on the Florida court case, but if our attorney isn't willing to say that it is, I'm certainly not going to. That said, if we want consistency, we need an official stance...whatever it may be and however it may be derived. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further explanation as to why the pdf is relevant, despite the software focus: For example, The pdf states in part "While some Florida agencies have been authorized to hold copyrights since at least 1943, it could be argued that in a state with a constitutional right of access to public records, agency work products that are public records should be considered to be in the public domain, like those of their federal counterparts." and continues with a discussion regarding when/where and why this argument is and is not correct.--Elvey (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, do you claim there's no evidence Template:PD-FLGov applies? I'm not an admin, so I don't have access to the uploader's rationale. Do you think File:Gov_Jeb_Bush.jpg should be deleted? Do you concede that http://www.myfloridahouse.gov is an official FL gov't website? That it claims a FL copyright on the image? --Elvey (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—I think the question before us is fairly simple.
Template:PD-FLGov would clearly apply if this were: "a ... photograph ... made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any ... separate unit of government created or established by law of the State of Florida." (Quotation taken from the template itself.) The question is whether the uploader was justified in assuming that an image of a living person hosted by the State of Florida is in connection with the transaction of official business. I think that if it's not clear the uploader was justified in that assumption, then we have to endorse Stifle's deletion of the image. Would anyone disagree?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with S Marshall (rather obviously). Stifle (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, for the umpteenth time, do you ...concede that http://www.myfloridahouse.gov is an official FL gov't website? That it claims a FL copyright on the image? --Elvey (talk) 3:03 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)--Elvey (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's relevant. All this discussion about "Are you a lawyer?" or "Is this an official FL government website?" is a red herring, which is why participants in this DRV are ignoring it.
We aren't here to decide matters of law. If the law was involved, we would defer to the Wikimedia Foundation's decision on what to do. We also aren't here to decide on whether there's anything legally wrong with Template:PD-FLGov. As far as this DRV is concerned, Template:PD-FLGov is a perfectly valid justification for the image. The only thing we decide here is matters of Wikipedia policy. The specific question we need to decide now is whether Template:PD-FLGov applies to this image. If you can show that it does, Elvey, then this DRV will result in the image being kept, because I'm 100% confident that under those circumstances, Stifle would reverse his own decision and re-upload the image. But if you can't show that it applies, then I think this DRV would have to endorse Stifle's deletion. The position so far is that you've shown that the State of Florida hosts the image. But that's not sufficient to show that Template:PD-FLGov actually applies to it. So I'll repeat the key question that this DRV hinges on: Was the uploader justified in assuming that an image of a living person hosted by the State of Florida is in connection with the transaction of official business?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept that myfloridahouse.gov is an official Florida government website. I do not accept that the image was created by the State of Florida or any county, district, authority, municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government of that state, and if it was, I do not accept that the image was made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with official business. The burden of proof is on you, Elvey, to show that the image meets all the criteria, and your bluster about how I'm not responding to your questions on the matter of one of them is not especially helpful. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Section break purely for editing purposes
Carnildo wrote "Source website [1] says "copyrighted"; there's no evidence that this is any of the types of work that {{PD-FLGov}} applies to." as the reason for the XFD. i.e. A; B. I think there's a leap of logic from A to B that's both unjustified and incorrect, and in fact the opposite is close to the truth. I'm proceeding in a methodical (sometimes step-by-step) manner to show that (or at least figure out why it is that we're reaching opposing conclusions regarding the acceptability of this image on WP). Hence the questions. Can I consider it established fact that FL has asserted copyright over content it created that its constitution says it can't copyright? I think we've reached consensus that the answer to that is yes. Establishing affirmative answers to "Is this an official FL government website?" and "Do you concede that it claims a FL copyright on the image? " is, in my plan, key to establishing, in turn, that the source website (in particular the copyright notice) establishes that it's a product of or created by the State of Florida or any county, district, authority, municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government of that state which, I believe key to establishing, in turn, that {{PD-FLGov}} applies. But, I'm trying to make the argument step-by-step. So, YET AGAIN:
Do you concede that it claims a FL copyright on the image?
Can I consider it established fact or even most likely that FL has in the case of this image, asserted copyright over content it has NOT created? I think we've reached no consensus on that answer. Thoughts?--Elvey (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the site [1] claims that the image is copyrighted, property of the state of Florida. I don't have any opinion on whether the claim is valid, and if it is, I do not agree that the state of Florida has agreed to release the image into the public domain, nor that the image is in the public domain by operation of law or constitution.
For the record, there was nothing on the image page other than the source, license tag, and date "2004". Stifle (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, could you please state for the record why you currently think the image shouldn't be on Wikipedia? It's becoming increasingly unclear to me. If you agree with what S Marshall last said, say so, and that answers my question--Elvey (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I believe it's copyrighted and we don't have a license to use it. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you are implicitly asserting Florida has asserted copyright over content it has NOT created, namely this image. (Right?) Upon what basis do you make that assertion? It seems a rather bold claim to make, and I see no evidence for it. Are you aware of anyone in particular who believes they have a copyright on it (or any other Florida legislators pictures currently or recently on a wikimedia site, other than Florida?) If so, who? --Elvey (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm asserting that Wikipedia does not have the right to use the image. I agree with what S Marshall last said.
- I really do think we're going around in circles here. I can't put it more plainly — I feel that the circumstances in {{PD-FLGov}} do not apply to this image, either because the Florida government (or other state agency) did not create it, or because if it did create it, it was not made pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business.
- In the alternative, if the Florida government does, somehow, hold copyright to this image, I believe it has not licensed us to use it under that copyright. Stifle (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not putting it plainly; there could be a host of reasons that you think the circumstances in {{PD-FLGov}} do not apply to this image. And you are avoiding saying which it is by your use of the word or. Pick one. Florida has asserted copyright over content it has NOT created, namely this image? or Florida has asserted copyright over content it has created, namely this image? Or do I'll have to show that either way, {{PD-FLGov}} applies to get this overturned?! --Elvey (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- In the case of the former, you are "implicitly asserting Florida has asserted copyright over content it has NOT created", which has the problems I've pointed out. In the case of the latter, please read point #4, below. What branch of Florida do you imagine created it that isn't included by sentence 2? (It, to my eye, includes all non-federal government in the state!)--Elvey (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello? Stifle, please respond to this. This is where the main discussion is taking place. Instead you're just addressing peripheral stuff, as I described it in an edit summary.--Elvey (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Straw man. You're attributing a weak argument to me, and saying that I'm not defending it.
- My point is not who created it, it's what it is. The image is not, from what I can see, "made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business". Therefore, {{PD-FLGov}} doesn't apply to it.
- Not a straw man. You wrote that "You currently think the image shouldn't be on Wikipedia": "Because I believe it's copyrighted and we don't have a license to use it." You then wrote: "I feel that the circumstances in template PD-FLGov do not apply to this image, either because the Florida government (or other state agency) did not create it, or because if it did create it, it was not made pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business." (emphasis mine) And yet, you then say your point is NOT <sic>who created it.
- It is a fact of logic that since you believe Florida has asserted copyright over this image, then it must be true that either you believe Florida has asserted copyright over content it has NOT created, namely this image, or you believe Florida has asserted copyright over content it HAS created, namely this image. So, I'm showing that your argument leads to conclusions that don't make much sense, therefore it must not be valid.--Elvey (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elvey, we're getting into WP:IDHT territory here. You have yet to say, despite multiple requests from myself and S Marshall, why you feel that the image meets that definition. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true! I HAVE stated why I feel that the image meets that definition of PD-FLGov: 1. I wrote "The image was stated to be from http://www.myfloridahouse.gov, an official FL gov't website. It's certainly funded by the FL legislature; the official website is not run on a volunteer basis, according to common sense." 2. In addition, PhilKnight and I BOTH said: "It was sourced to http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/details.aspx?MemberId=4244&SessionId=37 that implies the work was created by the Florida Government, which it appears would place it in the public domain, contrary to the copyright notice on the web page." 3. Re.what it is: The phrase you reference, "made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business," is not the language in the constitution. It's just from statute, and is in PD-FLGov, as has been brought up before. I have just attempted to rectify what may have been a problem with the template, namely employment of a definition of what public documents the sunshine clause of the constitution put in the public domain that may have ben narrower than the definition actually in the sunshine clause. Therefore, {{PD-FLGov}} (especially given this edit) currently does apply to this image.--Elvey (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're changing the template to support your position once your argument was defeated. Sorry, but I'm finished with this DRV; you've made it clear that you won't accept anything that doesn't agree with your point of view. The closing admin will determine the result. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- GoodBye. I note that you've done an end run in order to avoid responding to my argument directly, and set up a straw man. Your behavior (e.g. insulting statements toward me, WP:IDHT, etc) suggest a strong emotional attachment to the outcome of this DRV. It is not a personal attack on your being.--Elvey (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My position was that a bunch of directly conflicting decisions existed and warranted discussion. (Look up at the opening sentence of this DRV.) My position has come to also be that that the image is permissible on wikipedia, in particular, it didn't violate policy and it doesn't violate copyright because it it a work of the Florida government, based upon review of the mostly likely interpretations of the facts and application of Occam's Razor. Your position is that "the image shouldn't be on Wikipedia" because it would be a copyright law violation. You've conceded that Florida has asserted copyright over the image. Would Florida do that if in fact it has NOT created it? The answer to that is simply a commonsense 'probably not', as there is no evidence to support that idea. Plus, there's no reason to assume Florida would be asserting copyright over lots of images it didn't create, other than copyright paranoia. Therefore, we can conclude that Florida created it, in which case point #4, below, applies, so the sunshine clause applies, so there's no copyright law violation in having it here. Whether {{PD-FLGov}} was applicable is relevant, and was the focus of dispute until you bowed out of the discussion. Generally appropriate editing of {{PD-FLGov}} is entirely appropriate, even if the edits (such as mine, which you've reverted) make {{PD-FLGov}} a better argument for why the image in question doesn't violate policy. I'm hoping someone with experience with this will be {{closing}} this DRV soon.--Elvey (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore / Undelete (this is my DRV) . No cogent, defensible argument for why the image must not be here. I hope that the admin that closes this doesn't consider arguments that are logically fallacious to have weight. --Elvey (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the bolded comment; by listing here it is clear that you wish the deletion to be reversed; adding bolded comments like this may give an incorrect appearance that other users support your position. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarifying; Reverting. With all proper DRVs, Oppose own deletion is not the position of the deleter, yet you've both put your position in bold, and stricken mine! Opinions on the appropriateness of deletions of this class of images (i.e. images alleged to be in the public domain based on an argument supported by Microdecisions v. Skinner) are FAR from uniquely mine. Many users have expressed opposition cogently; I have linked to such arguments here already. another argument. I believe statements by the likes of PhilKnight, MichaelMaggs, Miranda, Quadell, Crypticfirefly, JPG-GR, Dcoetzee, Callelinea, Carl Lindberg, Simetrical, Gamweb, Andy Dingley, etc. indicate broad support for the appropriateness of images backed by the same rationale as this image, and some Undelete support, even if not expressed WRT this particular image. I agree, we are getting into WP:IDHT territory indeed!
- I think the simplest interpretation of the facts before is us that the Florida government does hold copyright to this image.
The Florida Government clearly asserts copyright over it, and I see no reason not to take that assertion at face value. I think it's also reasonable to presume that the Florida Government understands the law of Florida. The various facets of this can be reconciled if this is the kind of content over which the Florida Government is entitled to assert copyright: i.e., something that is not "in connection with official business". This interpretation makes sense to me, because hosting someone's personal website and promotional pictures is clearly not the "official business" of a state government. This seems to me to be the fatal flaw in the argument for undeleting this image.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- S, this argument is easy to dispel. Please read the two sentences from the Florida Constitution below. There's no "in connection with official business" in there. The language is quite different. And take a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-FLGov and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_12#Template:FLGovernment --Elvey (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't even slightly care what the Florida Constitution says. US law is about as relevant to me as the law of Timbuktoo.
What I care about is Wikipedia policy, and that's where I'm getting the language of "in connection with official business" from. It comes from the actual template itself, which quite explicitly uses those words. Now, you could argue that the template is wrong, but if you wish to make that case, then you're in the wrong forum. DRV is here to decide whether Wikipedia policy has been misinterpreted, or not followed, by the deleting admin. Please make a case why Stifle was wrong in terms of Wikipedia's policies, rules, or guidelines.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please watch your tone. DRV is certainly for more than just allegations of policy violation by the closer. It's appropriate if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or there's some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not previously presented during the debate or to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, which may also involve reviewing content in some cases, as well as purely procedural error, substantive or not. No. It's both funny and annoying how there's a hop from argument to argument as each sinks into the inky blackness. BTW, IIRC, your sig violates sig policies, rules, or guidelines because of its height. Yup. --Elvey (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Elvey (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other arguments
1. And aside from the argument that {{PD-FLGov}}, I don't suspect it would be terribly hard to make a fair use case for this image; this is wikipedia, not commons. What arguments appeared on the images page or talk page prior to deletion?--Elvey (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately a fair use case for this image would fail, as fair use images of living people are presumed to be replaceable. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia --Elvey (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an essay, and it's valid in some circumstances. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be tagged an essay, but it's really not. It's just a talk page. I think it's most often invoked as a catch-phrase, really. The first time I sat down to read it, I found myself wondering if those who invoke it actually have. It includes such statements as "There's no "trend": we've always been "paranoid" about copyright infringement, and I like it that way, personally!" and "While I don't think we should delete entire articles that such material is inserted into, it would be extremely bad for the project's credibility to tolerate these to remain." and "Copyright infringements put Wikipedia's owners and the project itself at some risk. That's why we care." and "I'm really saddened to see this article. The fuzzy thinking -- "We won't get caught, it's not that big a deal" -- is sloppy and unprofessional. Or, unamateur, to be more specific." and "We don't delete non-free content because we're afraid of getting sued. We delete non-free content because it's non-free." In other words, it's always struck me as a slightly odd link for those wanting to argue against removing potentially unfree material, since consensus there seems to be "It's not paranoid; it's good scholarship and good sense." (Though surely there are some offering different views as well.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.Consistency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Cheney_2005_official_portrait.jpg is delete-able; as no valid source for the image is provided. (The source URL is invalid.) If I wanted to be POINTy, I'd propose its deletion. (However fair use would be easier to argue with, given how hard it is to catch Dick in public! :-) )
- Not relevant; each image stands or falls on its own merits. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think official guidelines matter. I think that where a decision is made based on respecting a policy or guideline, and the same issue comes up again, it should be decided the same way.--Elvey (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Note: the Florida Constitution says, and read it carefully, "Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution."--Elvey (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how that makes it public domain or freely licensed, because it does not give people the right to make further copies, redistribute it, etc. In Ireland, people can have access to pretty much any damn record they want from the government or a whole host of agencies, under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. But having access to something is not the same as having permission to recopy it or make derivative works from it. As S Marshall says, this is a Wikipedia policy issue, not a legal issue. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And you say you don't disagree with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-FLGov and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_12#Template:FLGovernment! If you agree with the winning arguments therein then you're exhibiting doublethink. That part of the constitution DOES make works "public domain". It DOES "give people the right to make further copies, redistribute", etc. --Elvey (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, with respect to this discussion, I can't find a cogent explanation for why you consider both my and the uploader's justification for the use of Template:PD-FLGov for this image invalid.--Elvey (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that some works created by or under the copyright of the state of Florida are PD by operation of law. I believe that this isn't such a work. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's short, but not cogent, for reasons already given.--Elvey (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion, the crux of the arguement is whether being hosted by the State of Florida and presented on a webpage copyrighted by the State of Florida means this image falls into Template:PD-FLGov. Having reviewed the frankly spectacular and enormously repetitive discussion above I do not feel that this has been established. Since this has not been established and no one has come up with fair use criteria (living person, recreatable image, I can't think of a sound reason). Matter of law notwithstanding, this image does not meet wikipedias inclusion criteria, a subset, as they are, of legal inclusion standards. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
