Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from www.imf.org

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Pictures from www.imf.org

[edit]

"These photographs are in the public domain. They are free to use for publication purposes." (emphasized by me). Press license. Derivative work and commercial use not expressly permitted. Also, authors can only be persons, no organization such as "International Monetary Fund" Rtc 07:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These photographs are in the public domain. (Emphasized by me). This should settle it as public domain means that are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large (cited from here). Hence, I do not understand why these pictures are now listed here for deletion. And I do not understand how you come to the conclusion that Derivative work and commercial use not expressly permitted. --AFBorchert 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain has different meanings to different people. In the same way as "no copyright", "copyright free" or "free use", the term usually refers to that some use is permitted without the need to ask first. it doesn't necessarily mean that all use is permitted, or that modification is permitted or that commercial use is permitted. You can see clearly that they don't really mean public domain in the sense that you refer to, since they explicitly say that the pictures are "for publication purposes [only]". And "Derivative work and commercial use not expressly permitted" because, well, they are not expressly permitted. At least I can find neither the word "derivative" nor "commercial" in the statement "These photographs are in the public domain. They are free to use for publication purposes". --Rtc 08:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change. Public Domain is a legal term which doesn't allow restrictions such as free to use for publication purposes. On a sidenote authors can in some countries sell all their rights to an image to a company or an organisation. Most likely this is the case for these images./Lokal_Profil 12:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they can, but that doesn't make them authors, only copyfight holders. This is a press license, not a free one. Use is permitted only for publication purposes. --Rtc 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and btw "authors can only be persons, no organization such as "International Monetary Fund" is wrong. For example PETA is the "author" of all their photos (which they subsequently released to PD).—the preceding unsigned comment is by Lhademmor (talk • contribs) 13:14, 26 March 2007
    • No, organizations can only be copyright owners, not authors. They did not release them into PD in the sense of {{PD}} --Rtc 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you like to provide a source for this statement? I'd think the US federal government (which release al of their employees works into PD) might disagree /Lokal_Profil 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I say is analytically true. The author is the person who created the work originally. I am not saying that the organization could not in principle release their work into the public domain, but it didn't do here; it released them for publication purposes. The US federal government does not release their works of employees into PD, but it exempts them from copyright protection by law from the very beginning, which is something different. Of course it could even release them if it were not so, because they'd own the copyright then, as its work made for hire. Perhaps you misunderstood me; my second statement "They did not release them into PD in the sense of {{PD}}" was not related in any way to the first "No, organizations can only be copyright owners, not authors." --Rtc 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is legally true, however, (and let's focus on copyright law rather than semantic philosophy) is that organisations can be the legal authors (not just mere copyright holders) of a work in the US. The additional sentence regarding publication purposes is likely intended as a clairfying statement for readers unfamiliar with the public domain concept, rather than as a restricting clause, as there is no such thing as a work "in the public domain for publication purposes only." Keep. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, that's not right. By "publication purposes" they want to make clear that they mean by "public domain" merely that you don't have to pay or ask if you use the pictures for publication purposes. Besides that, the photos were certainly not made by an employee, but by an external self-employed photographer on appointment. The website [1] speaks about copyright registration forms, not about who is to be credited as the author. --Rtc 06:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The very purpose of registering copyright, of course, is to create a record determining who should be credited as the author of a given work. Whether the photographer was "employed" by the organisation in a colloquial sense doesn't matter, so long as they were employed in the sense required for the purposes of determining whether a work is a work for hire for copyright purposes. One would never use a well-defined legal term such as public domain in a licensing statement if the intent was to redefine it in such a drastic manner as you extrapolate. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Lets stop the irrelevant discussion about authors now and concentrate on whether these pictues are genuinely PD (which they are not). People use "public domain" in all kinds of meanings. You use an argument from personal incredulity about "One would never use". The "for publication purposes" clearly casts doubt on your interpretation. Why don't you ask them whether they really mean public domain in the sense that modification and commercial use for any purpose by anyone, even for caricatures, postcards and posters are permitted without paying a fee to the photographer, are permitted, and whether they could put a Template:CC-PD on their website to make that clear? --Rtc 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Public Domain is clearly declared with the opening phrase, the latter part of the message is merely emphasis (cf. This pizza is free. You don't have to pay for it.) I'm not entirely certain how the IMF could've made it much clearer than the statement "These photographs are in the public domain". I'll happily send an e-mail to confirm if needs be, but honestly I'd feel a little bit silly doing so: "When you said These photographs are in the Public domain, did you really mean it?". This seems kind of an open and shut case to me. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Public domain can mean a lot of different things to different people. Let me explain the logic that ordinary people use: They see copyright as a restriction for people to copy the work, and Public Domain as the absence of this restriction. They see derivative work as an inherent right of the author for which they don't even think of that it could be released. And they assume that the right for commercial use is something that is similarly outside of the scope of copyright, and that it can only be given away for an adequate amount of money. In this case, the people who have written the note on the website were ordinary people (often even big companies and organizations have ordinary people communicating with the outside world, doing websites etc.) that wrote it so that other ordinary people can understand it. The statement certainly wasn't meant for commons collectionist in the legal sense of the word "public domain", and the clarification sentence stresses that. You must ask yourself two things: If they really mean it, why do they put a clarification to publication use next to it instead of using something unambiguous, such as {{CC-PD}}? Do they really have the rights to release these pictures into the public domain if they have been made by external professional photographers on appointment? I don't think so. To assume that an amateur project such as commons could get a genuine free license for professional photos, or for works owned by big companies or organizations (except by contributions by a few enthusiastic commons users that are professional photographers themselves), is simply naive and far from reality. --Rtc 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a single shred of proof to back that assertion up? Regardless of intent, the declaration of release to the Public Domain is fairly unambiguous. Do you plan on going through every image uploaded with {{PD-author}} and claiming "These pictures are actually fairly good, and usable. The people who made them couldn't possibly have known what they were saying when they released them to the Public Domain." As far as I can tell, this is what your current argument boils down to. There is as far as I can see no reason to second-guess an international organisation as thoroughly well-grounded in finance and law as the IMF when it comes to their choice of licence. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not saying that {{PD-author}} is problematic, because it includes a link to w:public domain for disambiguation. About "There is as far as I can see no reason", I have given the strong arguments which let me doubt that it is genuine public domain. There can be no proof for anything at all, and I do not claim that I can prove what I say, but that it is true. It is an objective claim, and if you doubt it, check it. For example by writing a mail to the organization, describing the concerns I have mentioned and asking them what they think about that. I am going to admit immediately that I was wrong should you get back "Thanks for your request; yes, we have all the rights, and meant to release them not only for publication purposes, and in fact we have placed a CC-PD tag on our site now." or something similar. In any case 'The PD claim must be right because IMF is "well-grounded in finance and law"' is a fallacy. If the website were well-grounded about the pictures, it'd have an extensive legal code about use of the pictures. --Rtc 13:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All except you (in this discussion) see the obvious, i.e. that these pictures have been put into the public domain. And I do not see any reason to doubt that IMF knows what the term public domain means legally. If you want to write a letter to IMF, asking them if the legal terms they are using are indeed understood by them, go ahead. But do not expect us to send such a ridiculous letter. There is also no guideline here in the Commons which requires us to make guesses about the real intentions if plain well-known legal terms are used. --AFBorchert 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"public domain" is not at all a plain well-known legal term. If you are not going to "send such a ridiculous letter", how can you find out that you are wrong? Are you afraid of the truth? It is not about asking whether they have understood legal terms, but about the meaning in which they use the term "public domain" in conjunction with "for publication purposes" and whether it includes commercial use (postcards, posters) and derivative work (caricature) without paying royalties. I did not "doubt that IMF knows what the term public domain means legally", and in fact I don't care; it is entirely irrelevant for the issue discussed here. I doubt that they released their files as genuine public domain instead of merely for publication purposes. I doubt that they have the sufficient rights at all to release these photos as genuine public domain. We had several opportunities to see where "All except [me]" assumed to "see the obvious", yet where these "obvious" things turned out to be wrong when the mail reply arrived. --Rtc 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - PD is PD is PD. Stop trolling, Rtc. If a picture is dedicated to the PD some people like Rtc might think that commercial use and derivative works are excluded. Some people might also think that Erich van Däniken is right oder that the earth is flat or 1+1=3. --Historiograf 01:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "for publication purposes" clearly casts doubt on that and you know well that organizations usually don't have all the rights to release photos as PD that have been made by external photographers on appointment. If you think that it's incorrect what I am saying, check it. --Rtc 07:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This debate is mega-stupid. Public domain has a clear legal meaning. This is the IMF, not some bunch of idiots. If they say public-domain, they mean public domain. The second sentence is just an added clarification, in case someone doesn't know what public domain means - nearly everyone will just want to 'publish' the photos, so for the benefit of anyone who doesn't understand what "public domain" means, they are telling those people that 'yes', you can publish it. Anyone who wants to do anything other than 'publish' is presumed to have sufficient knowledge of copyright to understand what the unambiguous term "public domain" means. 87.74.9.141 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think that it's incorrect what I am saying, check it. Are you afraid of the truth? --Rtc 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check what, what are you talking about? It says public domain. If you have evidence to the contrary, come back here and post it. Until then, this dicussion is speculation and a waste of time. 87.74.9.141 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can check that what I am say is true; you can mail them, describe my concerns and ask them whether they are correct. What you say is as much speculation as is what I am saying, but I do not ask you to delete the template immediately until you have evidence for your interpretation. I cannot mail them myself, since this inevitably leads to accusations of biased questions, as it has happened in the past. I do not need any 'evidence'. Discussing with you is a waste of time, correct, since you are interested only in keeping these pictures by all means, not interested in whether my concerns are correct. --Rtc 10:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you've got this the wrong way round. The page clearly says "public domain". You believe this is wrong, so it is you that should mail them. They are as you say "your concerns". 84.9.39.113 10:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their “Copyright and Usage” page states that “The IMF freely authorizes downloading and/or reprinting files from its website for any non-commercial use. For any commercial use of the content on this website (e.g., repurposing or reprinting content for cash sales), please obtain written permission from the IMF by submitting an online Request for Copyright Permission Form [...] single copies may be made by an individual for his/her own private use. For all other purposes, such as i) the distribution of multiple copies to other individuals, ii) copies made for any public or commercial purpose, or iii) if copies will be sold at a cash price to readers, permission should be obtained via one of the contacts listed in the preceding paragraph.” Kjetil r 02:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tilmandralle 10:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These photographs are in the public domain. They are free to use for publication purposes sounds clear. --Yuma 02:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You by far do not need a public domain license to use pictures for publication purposes, and certainly the IMF didn't want to release more rights than necessary. If you think that it sounds clear, why don't you write them a mail, state my concerns and ask whether they are correct? --Rtc 08:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I explained above, I think that they added that "they are free to use for publication purposes" in case anybody didn't understand what "public domain" means. Either way, as "public domain" has a very specific and obvious meaning, if you think it isn't PD, then *you* need to prove otherwise. 84.9.39.113 10:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you think that I need to prove anything? I cannot, need not and will not prove anything. A proof is not necessary for a claim to be true. We are also not in court here. If you are interested in the truth about the status of these pictures, and are not merely afraid that what I say could actually be true, then write them a mail, state my concerns and ask whether they are correct. If not, see these pictures deleted in any case since claims that I didn't prove anything are not an argument and will be ignored. --Rtc 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This whole debate seems quite unnecessary. These photographs are in the public domain. They are free to use for publication purposes there can be nothing clearer than that. WC and wikipedia publishes these photographs, therefore they are free to use. If you can delete these pictures you can delete just about everything on the whole website.--Ruddyell 11:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons demands more than merely being able to publish them. See COM:L, which lists commercial use and derviative work being necessary. What you say is not an argument at all. Why don't you check it by sending them an email? --Rtc 17:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that commons demands more than to be able to just publish, but nevertheless, if the IMF didn't want people like us reusing their photos then These photographs are in the public domain. They are free to use for publication purposes would be an incredibly stupid thing to put on their webpage. The IMF are not incredibly stupid. What you are trying to do is get rid of these images over a strict, strict technicality, but we can't go around expecting organisations to go and write an essay on who can and cannot use their photos all the time, if we did we'd have a very poor quality website with hardly any content. And btw, I am completely satisfied these images are free, as are the majority so far. You are the one with the problem so why don't you write to the IMF----Ruddyell 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to make one thing clear: These pictures are in fact not free. Of course the IMF wants "us" to use the pictures, but it does not want to permit free use to anyone, even commercially, and even as derivative works. If these pictures were genuinely Public Domain in the legal meaning of the term, they'd use [2] and not clarify what they mean with "They are free to use for publication purposes" (emphasized by me) and "The IMF freely authorizes downloading and/or reprinting files from its website for any non-commercial use."[3]. I am not trying to get rid of these pictures over a technicality, but because of COM:L and because I assume, that it is not the intention of the IMF to release these photos compliant to that (or that it even has the rights to do so without the permission of the photographers). Pictures must be free as in freedom, not merely legal to use in Wikimedia projects. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy is clear about that. --Rtc 20:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In an ideal situation, yes they would use creative commons, but in no country is it the law that only creative commons images are free use. If you want to open up a debate on WC only accepting cc images here is not the place to do it. "Public Domain" has been an established statement of free use since long before creative commons was created and it means the copyright owners wouldn't bother if we wiped our bottoms with the photos, nevermind crop a couple of them. Even with the second sentence it would be highly misleading for the IMF not to mean their photos are free use, and given their status as a well respected global institution maybe we could have a little trust.--Ruddyell 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I wrote them an e-mail, asking if the photos are PD. I intentionally avoided mentioning Wikipedia, I was asking if the photos could be "freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial". See User:Kjetil r/IMF Kjetil r 23:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment “Public Domain” is not as clear as some users voting {{Vk}} want it to be. I just noticed the copyright page at Faroestamps, saying “The texts and graphics on Faroestamps are in Public Domain and can be copied and cited, as long as Faroestamps is mentioned as a source. The texts and graphics may not be used for commercial purposes, or mechanical reproduction without permission from the Faroese Philatelic Office.” The “for publication purposes” clause clearly suggests that similar restrictions apply for the IMF photos. Kjetil r 06:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kjetil, did you get any reply on your email? Siebrand 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Someone else should try as well. Kjetil r 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, some googling suggest that the term “public domain” is used in many different ways. I see copyright notices like “The data that you have selected belongs to the public domain. Data can be accessed accepting the User Agreement for non commercial use”, “It is freely available for non-commercial purposes as public domain,” etc. at many, many websites. Kjetil r 06:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This means that they don't know what they're talking about. If they say it's public domain, it's public domain, even if they didn't intend to release it with no license or stipulations because they don't know what public domain means. Cuivienen 14:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No; in an ambiguous case ("Public Domain" can have many different meanings), what counts legally is their intention, not the most extreme interpretation. --rtc 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I closed this issue with 'keep'. User:Rtc reverted this. Siebrand 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be closed until we get an answer from IMF. If one look at similar deletion requests, one sees that websites have used similar "clear" wording (and that 10-15 users have said Keep), but when we contact them, the licenses were in fact noncommercial or press licenses (see for example Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs). It is reasonable to doubt if the IMF really has intended to release the photos as PD (in the sense we use the term "public domain" in Wikimedia projects.) Kjetil r 19:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'll send an e-mail again. I really think oher users should do the same, instead of saying Keep. Kjetil r 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have received confirmation by the IMF that the images can be used commercially, etc. I have prepared Template:PD-imf.org and have forwared the image to OTRS. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the ticket number to the template. Kjetil r 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Pictures_from_www.imf.org&oldid=13285139"