Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 November 10

< November 9	November 11 >

November 10[edit]

File:M1knpo4m1973.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Missing evidence of permission. This file may be restored if permission from the NOAO is received at OTRS via this procedure -FASTILY 07:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a US government image. From the copyright statement: For copyrighted materials, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner, NOAO/AURA, prior to use. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NOAO is the US government, it is a government agency. Fotaun (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fotaun: That doesn't seem to be so, per NOAO/AURA Image Library Conditions of Use, which says in its first paragraph "The materials created, authored and/or prepared by NOAO are copyrighted in content, presentation, and intellectual or creative origin." The organisation is at arm's length from the US Government: "NOAO is the national center for ground-based nighttime astronomy in the United States and is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA). under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation." It is thus NOT part of the NSF or anything federal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not "at arms lengths" it is part of the Federal Gov, and funded as such budget here. Its not an independent organization in that sense. Also, it states for copyrighted materials, which in this case it is the work of federal government so it is misleading, but not all content on the website may be produced by them. Fotaun (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That page specifically states "The materials created, authored and/or prepared by NOAO are copyrighted in content, presentation, and intellectual or creative origin." Further, NOAO not *not* a government agency. It receives funding from NSF, but that in and of itself does not remove copyright. It is a publicly funded, privately operated endeavour, similar in some regards to congressionally chartered corporations like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and similar state-owned enterprises of the United States. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The oganisation is certainly not "part of the Federal Gov", so all your logic, Fotaun, falls down at the first hurdle. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the budget "As a Federally Funded Research and Development Center sponsored by NSF, the primary purpose of NOAO is to serve as the U.S. national center..." budget here. As far as the NSF relationship, it is also a government agency. If they are not someone may want to check who is writing the 8 billion dollar checks for them! The NOAO is much smaller of course, but it is nevertheless a part of the federal government and budgeted as such. Fotaun (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is being missed here is that the copyright notice says in unequivocal terms that the materials created by NOAO are copyrighted. Being sponsored by something that is an agency of the government does not make the NOAO the government itself, and (even if it did) a copyright notice is plain enough. The image is a direct WP:COPYVIO. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fotaun, I think you completely missed or ignored my explanation for NOAO's status, so let's try this again: they are not part of the federal government structure, but are a privately operated publicly funded entity. Receiving funding from the U.S. government does not equate to being a federal agency. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did not provide any reason for this, whereas the funding document makes it more clear they are part of the NSF. I have never seen any documentation supporting the claim the NOAO is a private organization that receives public funding, rather it is part of the NSF. While there is certainly plenty of exceptions, work of this type normally goes into the public domain Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. For what its worth the NOAO did not exist when this image was made in 1973, as they present, a government employee at a government agency. I expected this to be a slam dunk for public domain and I have never heard of anyone claiming the NOAO is a private organization until now. Cheers. Fotaun (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we agree. For future reference, NOAO images can be speedily deleted under G12 Unambiguous Copyright Violation so they won't need to be brought to XfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen any evidence that the NOAO is private organization, nor was any presented here;it is a part of the NSF and is government agency. Kitt peak is the National, as in US government telescope and operated by itself and in general not entitled copyright protection. Fotaun (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, there is no evidence that it's part of the NSF or the US government, and there is clear evidence to the contrary, including both the copyright statement now twice quoted in full above, and the statement also quoted above that it is "under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation": you can't have a cooperative agreement with yourself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the US government make agreements all the time with each other. Here is one with the DOE and NASA [1] Fotaun (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update- The NOAO is being reorganized into the National Center for Optical Infrared Astronomy [2] Fotaun (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file is Copyright, and that's that. Keeping it here is a blatant copyright violation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US government organizations cannot in general hold a copyright see here, but I will agree that the copyright status of the image unclear under the new National Center for Optical Infrared Astronomy is unknown now. The statement from the old website is definitely out of date, but the problem is now there is no documentation for the National Center for Optical Infrared Astronomy for something like this, which presumably inherited the archives of the Kitt Peak Observatory. I don't think we can establish it is public domain without more information from the new National Center for Optical Infrared Astronomy. Fotaun (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep a file that might or might not change its copyright status when the organisation that issued it stated clearly that it was in copyright, unless you can get an OTRS ticket for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These kind of disclaimers are often on government sites for the exceptions that prove the rule, a 50 year old picture of nebula from government observatory is not exactly cutting edge research. Originally, the NOAO did not exist until the 1980s. That said, a lot of university type don't want their new research getting put in the public domain, so there is some mumbo jumbo to get the public cash then close the doors, very convenient! However, in this case I agree that even I am not sure what that status is now NCOR so I guess it will have to go. Public domain for government stuff is in general one of the clearest cut and best PD, but in this case there is no documentation either way under the National Center for Optical Infrared Astronomy. If they were contacted a lot of this stuff old and new could probably be used, that is a great point. If it does not change then the relevant question is what was its status in 1973, which seemed to be a reasonably clear cut cast of public domain Government content. Fotaun (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.