Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Akk7a

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Akk7a (talk · contribs) - unreviewed photos of GODL-India from Twitter accounts - 2023 upload up to 2023-03-28[edit]

GODL requires license to be clearly marked, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Media_in_Category:Unreviewed_photos_of_GODL-India and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=680893121#Copyright_query It appears that this image fails this requirement. Like probably nearly all 11746+ (now 13281) images from Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India

Also, it is an invalid license use, claimed license is for data (including graphic representation of data) - not for photos. See "“Data” means a representation of information4, numerical compilations and observations, documents, facts, maps, images, charts, tables and figures, concepts in digital and/or analog form, and includes metadata,5 that is all information about data, and/or clarificatory notes provided by data provider(s), without which the data concerned cannot be interpreted or used.6" in license text

And how do we know that "b. Data that the data provider(s) is not authorized to license, that is data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive;" exclusion is not applying? That is why GODL requires license to be clearly marked - because without that omnipotence is required to know whether this (or some other exclusion) is applying

I am really sorry for confusion and mess caused by this license, but it is fault of whoever designed such trap.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let us all work to improve Wikipedia by enriching its content.

This page mentions about deleting images, which according to you fall in an area, which could be ‘non-shareable and/or sensitive’.
Data as defined in the NDSAP [1] includes images – I find it difficult to understand why images does not mean ‘pictures and photographs’ (considering that they have mentioned charts, figures and concepts separately).

Now let us see where all these pictures come from. Most of these are from the social media handles of branches of the Indian Armed Forces. The exact images and information are posted on twitter, facebook and Instagram. In all these media outlets, there has been no restriction or effort made to deny access to this information to the public. This itself means that the data is not sensitive. The content generator posts these information on social media, which is widely seen and shared !

The same information comes frequently on the website of the Press Information Bureau of the Government of India. The copyright policy can be viewed here [2] . The policy states clearly that ‘Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge and there is no need for any prior approval for using the content.’
The twitter handle of the Indian Army is embedded in the landing page of Official website of the Indian Army [3]. The copyright policy [4] is same as that of the Press Information Bureau.

When the Government of India and its branches are very open and liberal about putting this information on the public domain, encouraging users to freely and widely share this information, and explicitly stating this in their copyright policies, I find it difficult to agree on your opinion that these images need to be deleted.

Rather that deleting images, I suggest that you come out with constructive suggestion on how to better apply the license.
Thank you Akk7a (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The copyright policy can be viewed here [5] . The policy states clearly that ‘Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge and there is no need for any prior approval for using the content.’" is it stating anywhere that photos posted on Twitter are coverer by it? Note also "The permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any third-party material." so there needs to be confirmation that given material is not such third-party material and "The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context." may be not sufficiently free for Commons. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the Government of India and its branches are very open and liberal about putting this information on the public domain" with "not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" and "the source must be prominently acknowledged" material is NOT in public domain. See [6] Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"rather that deleting images, I suggest that you come out with constructive suggestion on how to better apply the license." - sadly, many images are not openly licensed and are ineligible for upload. In this specific case if I would have time to invest in this I would write to whoever operated this accounts and ask them to clarify legal status of images (if you do this - mention it here so more time will be needed for this process and I will try to not nominate more images you uploaded). In general, solution with some government works being automatically in public domain like USA did would be nice though that would be really hard to achieve. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Data as defined in the NDSAP" - how it is related to GODL? Do you have this document in text form, not in image form? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Let us work to improve Wikipedia by enriching its content." - note that Wikimedia Commons is for freely licensed content with documentation why it is freely licensed, and it is responsibility of uploader to document why image is freely licensed. Images which are not fulfilling this requirements should be deleted - and this also improves Wikimedia Commons (though I hope that in this case they are rescuable) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mateusz Konieczny: I didn't see anything in the GODL that limits it to official *.gov.in websites. Wouldn't official governmental social media accounts also be covered? holly {chat} 22:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Howcheng: is there anything in GODL that causes it to automatically apply to all material from all official media accounts? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mateusz Konieczny: Checking the text of the GODL, it says in the Definitions section (page 4), "Publication" means making a work available to the public by issue of copies, or by communicating the work to the public, in any medium or format. Thus, it seems to me that social media accounts are in fact included. Am I reading that wrong? holly {chat} 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note "all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India" part. So it applies to data, not photos. Unless it is some Indian English/Indian law/Indian court decisions specificity resulting in automatically covering also all photos produced by Indian Government? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does apply to photos. If we're wrong about that, then we have tens of thousands of files to delete. (Edit to add) It appears you contributed to discussion at Template talk:GODL-India. I suggest that any questions about what is or is not covered by this license be concluded there and that this nomination be closed pending any decisions made there. holly {chat} 17:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]