Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 22

< August 21	August 23 >

August 22

File:Deakin University Logo.png

unused, superior version available: File:Deakin University Logo 2017.svg FASTILY 03:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:MaalikHanai.jpg

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 03:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg

tagged OTRS received for over 7 months. After reviewing the associated ticket, I think it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed FASTILY 18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a public domain image, that was confirmed by the Mrs Rene S Stein NSA Librarian (Here she is: [1], when it was uploaded. The last I heard, the Wikipedia Foundation were in conversation with the NSA for the use of their images, for the whole Wikipedia platform. That was more than a year ago. Not heard anything back since. I tried to contact Rene around at that time, to get a OTRS Ticket fulfilled and was informed that the Foundation was talking to then. The document the image is taken from US Military document that was released by the NSA as no longer secret and as such it is public domain. scope_creep (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the document it comes from: [2]. It clearly states it is distributed free. scope_creep (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does that include commercial redistribution and modification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scope creep: The issue isn't whether the booklet is distributed without cost ("free" in the sense of "free pizza") — the issue is whether the image is free of copyright restrictions (free content). Unfortunately, the booklet doesn't credit the source of the image, so just from looking at the booklet, we can't tell whether the image was a US-government-authored image (public domain), a Nazi-authored image seized by the US government and determined to be public domain under US law (see Template:PD-HHOFFMANN for an example of these), an image authored by the British government (which would be public domain if it were taken prior to 1957), or an image authored by some other person, which is likely still under copyright. @Fastily: can you please tell us the nature of the OTRS ticket? Was it from a librarian purporting to be the copyright holder and granting a copyright release? (That's not worth the paper it isn't printed on.) Or was it from someone purporting to give us the provenance of the image in one of the above four categories? --B (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to post the email here? The email I received, from Patrick Williams, who tried to contact Ms Rene Stein, and successfully contacted me. This is that email. That was on 18th February 2017, and I've not heard anything since.

Dear Rene Stein,

Were these photos taken by a US federal employee in the course of their duties? If so then per Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code it is automatically in the public domain. If not, I need some information regarding who took the photos (if known) and when exactly they were taken. Regardless, it is likely that any possible copyright on these images has expired but I'd like to be certain. Thank you and if you have any questions please let me know.

Yours sincerely, Patrick Williams Permissions ticket number: Ticket#2018011110009211

And then I sent this:

RE: [Ticket#2018011110009211] FW: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Bob Watson Permissions (permissions@wikimedia.org) Hi Patrick. I can't get hold of Rene. It's possible he is on holiday or snowed in. The image is from a world war 2 device. The whole document is about world war 2 devices. Thanks. Bob

Rene is a women if you happen to contact her. Here is the Rene Stein email.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RE: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Bob - So sorry to take so long in getting this to you. I had to wait for the history people to transfer the pictures to me. There are two of the SG-39 and two of the SG-41. We don't have any of the other items so I can't help you there. However you may want to try the Cryptomuseum.com people. Please credit NSA for the photos. Thanks for your patience. Rene

Original Message-----

From: XXXX [3] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 5:42 AM To: Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Subject: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Dear Ms Rene Stein, I got a nice image of the SG 41 off of Klaus Schmeh, which he uploaded to Wikipedia commons, but so far no images of the SG39, Schlüsselkasten, Schlüsselscheibe or Schlüssselrad. I've put the image of SG41 into the Fritz Menzer article at https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Fritz_Menzer#Menzer.27s_Inventions If I can't get an image of those last three images, I would use the ones from the document as they are all we've got, although they are not ideal. Is there any particular copyright licence you would like to attach to them. Yours Sincerely. Bob

Original Message-----

From: Stein, Rene S. [4] Sent: 06 February 2017 16:08 To: 'XXXXX' <scope_creep@hotmail.com> Cc: Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Subject: RE: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Bob - If you want to use the photos in the publication, that's fine. However I am assuming that you would like better ones. I have a photo of an SG-41 that we have at the museum and I am trying to get one of the SG-39 from Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Tue 14/02/2017 16:36 To:'Bob Watson' <scope_creep@hotmail.com>; 4 attachments (2 MB) 200710231440.jpg; 200710231440-2.jpg; SG-39-1.jpg; SG-39-2.jpg; Mail – scope_creep@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search/rp 1 of 3 20/08/2018, 16:38 the History people. We don't have one of the Lückenfüllerwalze. I noticed that the Crypto-Museum website has one. Maybe they will allow you to use theirs. Please let me know if the photos from the publication suit your needs or you wanted something else. Thanks, Rene

Original Message-----

From: XXXXXX [5] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:21 AM To: Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Subject: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Dear Ms. Rene Stein I am contacting you regarding possibly licensing some images in a NSA document that I received from a contact. I spoked to Klaus Schmeh klaus@schmeh.org <mailto:klaus@schmeh.org> regarding a web site he created, which had several images of German World War II cryptographic machines, and he informed me that they were licenced from a document received from yourself and he gave me your contact details. The document is located at: https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/wwii/assets/files /german_cipher.pdf. As regards myself, I'm an editor in Wikipedia, and I'm currently writing an article on Fritz Menzer, who was an inventor during WW2. Here is the location: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Menzer I'm trying to get licensable images for the Lückenfüllerwalze, Schlüsselgerät 39, Schlüsselgerät 41 devices and so on. Essentially all the devices in that list, would be better if they had images of some sort. It's very hard to imagine what they looked like from their description, which is all I have at the moment. Mail – scope_creep@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search/rp 2 of 3 20/08/2018, 16:38 My editor name is: scope_creep Thanks for your time. Yours Sincerely XXXXX Mail – scope_creep@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search/rp 3 of 3 20/08/2018, 16:38

scope_creep (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scope creep: my gut says its likely public domain (probably a government photographer) but unfortunately nothing in this email chain tells us that. --B (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg

Photograph apparently taken of a photograph in a museum, with no attribution or context for the original photo. Can't reliably flag it as {{PD-UK-unknown}} as it may have been a previously private photo donated to the museum. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The file is a picture taken of a plaque in position out of doors in the Tide Mills complex, It is Fair Use because it is used for educational or discussion purposes in that a point made in it is discussed either in articles using the picture, or in the description of the picture when uploaded, or in both. Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Timtrent: There seem to be two copyrights which need to be resolved here: (1) the copyright of the underlying work, and (2) the copyright of the photo of the underlying work. The latter is easily dealt with by the {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, but it's the former which may prove to be more of a problem to resolve. Can you provide any more information about the underlying work? For example, who created it and when they created it, etc. Did you scan it from a book or was it part of some exhibition you attended? Any clarification you can provide will help in assessing its copyright status. Its possible that it's old enough ago to be within the public domain, but this just cannot be automatically assumed.
  If the underlying work's copyright status, however, cannot be verified, then the file most likely needs to be deleted. Relevant Wikipedia policy related to non-free content has been set up to be much more restrictive than the practice of fair use/fair dealing per WP:NFC#Background and files cannot simply be kept by claiiming WP:ITSFAIRUSE. It's unlikely that the underlying work would meet WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#8 even if a non-free copyright license were added for it; so, the best chance for keeping it is to figure out whether its old enough, etc. to be PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs details of original publication to meet NFCC (esp. #4 since "on display" is not publication). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a public display board, mounted in the open air on the Tide Mills site. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Year 2000 North Korea stamp commemorating the North Korea-loyal "Unconverted long-term prisoners" held in prison in South Korea (비전향 장기수).png

Very large non-free image (1.2Mpx). The question is keep? / reduce? / delete? I've set for no reduce for the purpose of this discussion. Allowing the facility to "zoom in", somewhat goes against NF policy. The need for text is also questionable as WP:NFC says An original, high resolution image (that can be reasonably scaled down to maintain overall artistic and critical details) may lose some text detail Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, thank you for starting this discussion of this file I uploaded yesterday. I was aware that the image was larger than usual, and in good faith I uploaded the image including within the rationale a request for an exception. So I look forward to this assessment by the Wiki community. Part of the upload justification in the file page reads as follows:

This image will be used as the primary means of visual identification of 63 persons in the article that talks about them. It would have been categorized as an historic portrait, was it not for the fact that some of the individuals are still alive. This upload is the most efficient way of providing visual identification of all 63 individuals, within just one file.

NOTE ON IMAGE SIZE: Wikipedia's Non-free content policy indicates that WP:Image resolution should be kept as low as possible. Usually it should be kept under 100,000 pixels. When larger "Images which need for some reason to be larger than this need a detailed justification given; otherwise they should be resized or deleted". This image merits an exception and here is the special justification for being larger. First, even though technically the pixel resolution is of 1293 × 925, the spatial resolution is lower than that (this was achieved with a two-step process of scanning the source book, and then taking a screen shot). Second, and more importantly, part of the purpose of displaying this image is so that 63 individuals, with their portrait pictures as well as their names, can be visible and legible respectively. A zoom-in to any one portrait in the file will demonstrate how the actual resolution per portrait is low; quite pixelated, as well as the captions under each. However, this resolution still allows it to be reasonably legible. Reducing further the resolution would render the text in the image illegible, and the image would lose an important part of its value.

Image at left has a higher pixel count than the one to the right, but is still of worse spatial resolution.

As for the pixel count, I want to draw attention to the distinction between pixel resolution and spatial resolution, as indicated in rationale above. See illustrative example to the right.

However, this is just a basic technical consideration. The core of the matter is whether this upload, which efficiently, within one single file, includes portraits of 63 individuals that are the direct topic of the article, can be kept at the size it was uploaded.

One more thing: Ron refers to WP:IMAGERES policy which says that loss of text detail is usually acceptable. I would like to posit that the only practical way to identify the image of the person, with the name, is to maintain enough resolution so that the text is legible (without needing to be crisp-- a balance I was aiming to strike in the current upload size). The usual alternative, which is to transcribe the names (and other data) and location of 63 individuals within the image, into the description of the image, seems unpractical for the readers to make sense of it in this case.

I look forward to the community assessment. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 19:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that I am not especially knowledgeable on the meaning on spatial resolution. There is a chance that my interpretation of it is incorrect. I am open to being disabused. In any case, the core of the rationale for inclusion of non-free image, and then its unusually large size, hinge on another considerations as outlined above. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 23:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:DOEACC Logo.jpg

Non-free logo that is being used as primary identification in National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology. there are two other uses claimed but one is a redirect and the other doe snot actually use the images. The primary identification is however being done performed with File:NIELIT Logo.jpg. This is a violation of WP:NFCC#3a as we do not need two logos for identification. this is especially true when it is not at all clear that this is a organisational logo. The source URL provided https://www.nielit.gov.in/ doe not work. Using HTTP instead of HTTPS does resolve but http://www.nielit.gov.in/ does not seem to have this logo anywhere. As such WP:NFCC#10a is not met either. Whpq (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization has rebranded as NIELIT. The old logo identifies the previous brand and is still used at http://www.doeacc.info/doeacc_headquater.php but I cannot confirm that this is an official site. Another editor originally uploaded the logo to Commons where it was likely to be deleted, so I added it at English Wikipedia. When you have two identifies, one current and one historical, you need two logos. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Organisations change their name and / or branding, but we do not keep their old logos unless the logos themselves are the subject of significant sourced commentary. --

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moses Baca mug shot.png

1935 mugshot, apparently created by the State of Colorado which can hold copyright. It's unclear when this was first published. If it was c. 1935, it's almost certainly public domain. If it was recent, this needs an appropriate fair use rationale to be kept. —Guan aco 08:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]