Delete per above Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Only work of the U.S. federal government or employees of it made as part of that person's official duties, is in the public domain.
This newspaper uses images from e.g. Gettty Images, AP and Reuters (example) and screenshots or movie posters from movie in their movie reviews (examples: page 16, page 5) and photos sent in by readers, which are not employees of the US Government (example; last page), as well as a lot of unattributed images and graphics, and many "photo courtesy by" (example, page 12)
Delete per above Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]Perhaps a minor point, but I think it is misleading to write these images cover the entire page. If brightly lit Russell Brand, on-stage, was whited out, leaving the text of the article on the fuzzy background of the unlit audience, readers would not be aware the background beneath the text was part of a photo. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete screeshot+book cover p.6 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete film cover p4 +several courtesy photos Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete book cover p6 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete film poster p10 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete film/tv serie images p10 11 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete "Newsday Photo" p5 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete some photo with no attribution, though likely taken by soldier during their free time, therefore not in PD Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete a singer photo p9 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete a pope photo + several courtesy ones Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete courtesy photo p8 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete movie + advertising p6 Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete movie poster p3 + unclear copyright statut of the cover Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete movie image p9 + one courtesy photo p10 Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete movie images p10-11 Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete movie image+ 1 courtesy article+photo Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Delete unclear copyright statut of photos taken during free time p9 Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unclear authorship/ copyright statut of fruits and vegetables icons on last page Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]Josve05a (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One might claim de minimis for images that only are on one page of a PDF; however imo de minimis is for unintended inclusions of copyrighted elements. However in PDF, just as with screenshots, these elements are very well intended and main focus of those pages they appear. Therefore the argument of de minimis falls flat when it comes to PDFs. Josve05a (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Truth be told, I only checked 10 of these before creating this DR. However all of those had non-free images. And I thought it was better to group all thiese for a common discussion regarding the limit for our application of COM:DM. Josve05a (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't have been listed here.
That one issue you identified, the tenth anniversary of 9-11 issue, with eight extra pages, six of which contained wire service images -- I think that is the only file that should trigger a concern. But, instead of deletion, I think all of the wire service images should be blanked out. Some or all of the wire service images of 9-11, and it aftermath, should be replaced with free alternatives, of which we have plenty, with a note saying we have done that. Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sry but i'm opposing this mass deletion as every pdf needs a review, see also URAA DR. It's ok to put all reviewed pdfs in one DR but the rest should be also reviewed as i think i found one above which doesn't have copyrighted pics.--Sanandros (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I wrote above, I uploaded these images, and I believe the frankly very small incidental inclusion of a few proprietary images, that only takes up a few percentage of the entire issue, falls under the de minimus principle. Geo Swan (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does there exist a tool to modify the pdf such as that only the pic it out of the pdf and the text remains?-Sanandros (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried out a couple of chrome extensions that claim to be able to edit pdf files. The most popular, something called Kami PDF escape, doesn't handle "large" files. The second one I tried, PDFzorro, did work, on the first dozen or so files I tried it on. It has some awkward features, typical of beta software. And it totally failed to work on one file, File:The Wire Issue22v11.pdf. Maybe JTF-GTMO left all the others unlocked, while locking this one. I dunno.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Commons:de minimis principle apply to a pdf file, of many pages length, when it contains a tiny percentage of proprietary material?
If I am walking down a street, and snap a picture, I can still put it in the public domain, even if, in the background a guy is reading a magazine, and a viewer can make out that it is, let's say Time, and they can recognize who is on that cover. The picture is essentially, of the street, and the magazine cover is incidental.
Inthis comment nominator wrote: "One might claim de minimis for images that only are on one page of a PDF; however imo de minimis is for unintended inclutions of copyrighted elements. Hoeever in PDF, just as with screenshots, these elements are very well intended and main focus of those pages they appear. Therefore the argument of de minimis falls flat when it comes to PDFs. "
I was going to ask nominator for a reference, except, when pasting in this passage, I see I overlooked the IMO, so I assume nominator has no reference to back up the opinion.
I asked our nominator to go back and use less obfuscated urls for his or her examples in the body of the explanation for the nomination. At this point they haven't done so, so I did my best in the following table. Geo Swan (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
| issue | url to image |
percentage of entire issue |
comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| File:The Wire Issue v13i01.pdf | ? |
Nominator didn't say which page or pages concerned him or her... About 3/4 of page 13 is taken up by a pictue of generic minarets, informing GIs of the muslim celebration of Eid. That is 3.75 % of the issue. About 1/8th of page 16 is taken up by a picture of Hollywood actor Matt Damon, illustrating a review of one of his films. That constitutes about 0.6 % of the issue. Added together that is still less than five percent of the issue. | |
| File:The Wire Issue39v12.pdf | 27 % |
This is an exceptional case. This issue was an expanded issue, containing 8 extra pages, to memorialize the 10th anniversary of al-Qaeda's attacks of 9-11. 5.5 of those extra pages contain wire service images related to the response to 9-11. At 27 % this is the only file I am aware for which I would agree de minimus doesn't apply. Few issues have as much as 5 percent non-PD images, and I don't think any other issue has even 10 percent. However, rather than deleting the whole image I suggest that, rather than leave questions in readers minds about censorship, this particular issue should be edited, replacing the proprietary images with a white box that says something like "Originally this page contained a photo montage composed of proprietary images, which have been blanked because they are not freely distributable" -- or something like that. | |
| File:The Wire Issue22v11.pdf | [1] | 3.75 % |
Two posters for a movie with Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. Many issues contain similar images. |
| File:The Wire Issue v19i04.pdf | [2] | 6.25 % |
This is the an instance of a feature the publication added a year or so ago. Every recent issue publishes a photo taken by a GI leaving the base. If nominator assumed it was taken by a professional photographer, they were mistaken. Images taken by Federal employees are PD -- when they are taken as part of their duties. I've wondered about this. A GI is on patrol, and Sarge tells his subordinates to take five, and have a smoke. If a GI pulls out his cellphone, or personal camera, and snaps some photos when on that smoke break, is it still PD? What about when he gets back to barracks, and is off-duty? I think it is likely that the Captain of a ship would issue instructions to the crew restricting when they can take photos. I think this would be a strong argument for treating any photos, taken on a ship, as PD, even if the sailor wasn't on-watch. |
| File:The Wire Issue01v6.pdf | [3] | less than 1 % |
An article on endangered sea life swimmers might encounter has an illustration of conch, advising swimmers to avoid disturbing them, that uses an image from a conservation site |
No, of course you won't.
Deciding on whether a rough calculation of the fraction of proprietary images we will agree don't make an entire issue deleteable is what I suggest we should be discussing here. I've argued under ten percent.
That tenth anniversary issue, which had eight extra pages for remembrance of the attacks on 9-11, is the only issue that nominator has identified that had more than that ten percent. I think it is probably the only issue with more than ten percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs)
Christian Ferrer reviewed the first 20 or so files that Jose listed. His or her comments are variations of agreements to delete, or variations of "probably OK". This contributor seems to be averaging being able to perform one review in about five minutes. Since one issue was published, every week, for 14 years, at that rate, it would take sixty hours to review every issue.
Sixty hours is a huge commitment of time.
In the discussion, above, I suggested that the issue that was published with extra pages to memorialize the 10th anniversay of 9-11, the one issue Jose found that contained many pages full of proprietary images, should have those pages blanked, rather than being deleted. Although I am not an expert, I believe gimp can do that.
Contributor Christian Ferrer should be aware that the first volumes of this publication lacked a regular feature in later volumes -- movie reviews, written by GIs, illustrated with a couple of proprietary movie images. I want them to know this, as they are going to find that none of the early issues, from early volumes, will have a proprietary image, while practically all issues from a later volume will have a one or two or three proprietary images illustrating a movie review.
If contributor Ferrer is prepared to spend hours, perhaps they would consider postponing their time commitment? If a decision is made that these issues shouldn't be retained, with the tiny admixture of proprietary images, perhaps contributor Ferrer would agree to use gimp, or some other appropriate tool, to replace the page with the movie image with a white box with an explanation as to why that page is missing? Geo Swan (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this nomination should have been withdrawn, since nominator, Josve05a, has acknowledged only actually checking a handful of these files, prior to making this nomination.
Hundreds of these files only contain DoD images, so they never should have been nominated.
I think a smaller nomination, of files that a nominator could have confidence were triggering their concern.
I uploaded these files. Uploading 700 or so files took me hundreds of hours. If they are all truly out of scope, or are all truly clearly not free enough to belong here, as is, no one would argue that they should be kept, as is, simply because I spent a long time uploading them. But, is it too much to ask, given the hundreds of hours to upload, that the files be individually checked, prior to nomination, so only those that genuinely triggered nominator's concern ended up being listed?
Christian Ferrer asserted that a very small, very simple, diagram on page 14ofFile:The Wire Issue02v5.pdf. Well, this link is to a version of page 14 where I blanked out everything but that tiny image. It consumes about one percent of the real estate of that page, which is just one of fourteen pages. 99.9 percent of the file is PD.
Christian Ferrer reviewed about twice as many files as the nominator -- about 20 files. I want to respect the effort they put into doing so, but the example above is not the only one I have questions about. In this edit they wrote "unclear copyright statut of photos taken during free time p9". However, while the photographer took images of off-duty GIs, since it was her job to go that event, take photos, then write about, she was clearly on duty, and those images PD. Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]Comment to closing admin: Some of these files (as checked) are OK. Most of those checked are not, and as described they are less likely to be okay they farther you go down the list. The degree of effort involved in checking each one is not trivial, and that involved in checking the corpus is massive. The likelihood of anyone dedicating the amount of effort required to edit them to redact the problematic material.... it's not going to happen. Per COM:EVID, it is the responsibility of the uploader to demonstrate that the files are acceptable. The COM:PRP says we should delete works where there is any significant doubt. The only sane solution is to delete the files that have not been checked as 'okay', provide copies by email if he needs them, and allow him to re-upload files after he verifies that they are clean of copyrighted material that we cannot verify as licensed. Reventtalk 08:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright issues apart, I don't understand the purpose of uploading all these files here. I could imagine to use one or two to illustrate an article, but I don't see the need to have them all. They would be in scope if there is at least a tentative to use them on Wikisource, but is this ever going to happen? Is there any likelyhood that they wouldn't be easily available at the source? (pay wall, etc.). If not, I don't see any reason to keep them as a reference. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination - I have checked a random set of files (not all 722) and all of them had copyright issues, even the ones that had been striped already by uploader. It's not managable and not reasonable to keep all those files online until somebody fixes them over the next few years. Better first fix some of them and then reupload them. As for the de minimis argument, this is not going to work of course. Imagine a newspaper publishing a copyrighted picture in a corner of page 15. If they would tell to a complaining copyright holder that the picture covers less than 1% of the newspaper, would they get away with it? I don't think so. Also for the picture made by their own people, it's very doubtful that all of them were shot as a part of their official duty, so probably a part of them are not PD either. --Jcb (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
