Knowledge (XXG):Files for discussion/2018 June 14

2828:? Please clarify. The article is a list of highway/routes with a brief discription of each. Each of these routes has a stand-alone article which is linked to from the article, so if the reader wants to know more about each that is where they will go. The stand-alone articles is where the non-free can be used because that is where they are being used as the primary means of identification and that is where any sourced critical commentary about the sign's imagery, etc. is more likely to be found. A list article such as this is not really all that different from "List of notable people", "List of books by", "List of albums by","List of films by", "List of flags", "List of symbols of", etc.; this type non-free use of pictures of deceased persons, album covers, book covers, movie posters, flags, symbols, etc. in those types of articles is pretty much never allowed for the same reasons given above in my nomination statement. 1584:. Personally, I think the use of the parameter is a good design choice, as it helps unclutter the infobox, while giving the user the option to view a screenshot of the website if they want to. However, I recognise there's been concerns raised multiple times across Knowledge (XXG) about how much info should be crammed into the infobox. While I would agree having screenshots in a collapsed state is the best option, others may disagree and would say leave it open and uncollapsed as default so that users can identify straight away the website in which the article discusses. Either that, or they would say to get rid of screenshots in the infobox entirely as they barely contribute to an average reader's knowledge of a particular website and further clutters the infobox. I think it's good to have some sort of consensus on this topic; what do you guys think about screenshots in 3093:, this discussion is not a deletion discussion per se, but rather has to do with the non-free use of these images in one particular article. If in your opinion the OTRS ticket covers these images, then that would mean they would no longer need to be non-free and thus no longer subject to WP:NFCCP. If that's truly the case, then the files' copyright tags should be converted to the license specified on the ticket. At the same time, if the OTRS ticket says that all Canadian road signs or at least all British Columbian road signs are PD, then these cannot be kept as non-free per 2671:

can be accepted as non-free use on Knowledge (XXG), and while I see lots of vector-versions of logos uploaded to Commons as "own work", I think that quite a number of them just have yet to undergo a proper license view. Commons, like Knowledge (XXG), runs on volunteer power and there are more files being uploaded than can be properly reviewed; so, many last for years before they are noticed. There was something about the Yellowhead image that I'd seen before, but I couldn't remember until now. A photo of it was discussed at

1841:

InChI=1S/C59H89N19O13S/c60-37(14-5-19-67-57(61)62)48(82)72-38(15-6-20-68-58(63)64)52(86)75-22-8-18-43(75)54(88)77-30-35(80)26-44(77)50(84)70-28-47(81)71-40(27-36-13-9-23-92-36)49(83)74-41(31-79)53(87)76-29-34-12-2-1-10-32(34)24-46(76)55(89)78-42-17-4-3-11-33(42)25-45(78)51(85)73-39(56(90)91)16-7-21-69-59(65)66/h1-2,9-10,12-13,23,33,35,37-46,79-80H,3-8,11,14-22,24-31,60H2,(H,70,84)(H,71,81)(H,72,82)(H,73,85)(H,74,83)(H,90,91)(H4,61,62,67)(H4,63,64,68)(H4,65,66,69)/t33-,35+,37+,38-,39-,40-,41-,42-,43-,44-,45?,46+/m0/s1

2847:. In that case, the copyright of the original work as well as the derivative need to be taken into account. If the original is something in the public domain or something released under a free license, you can license the derivative under a CC license; if not, then you need to have the permission of the not only the creator of the derivative, but also the original coyright holder to release the file under a free license. So unless you can show both, then there's a chance it will be deleted from Commons.-- 1673:— I don't find it to be that at all. This is about standard use, and it would not be the first time a screenshot is deleted because "we have a logo". Screenshots serve a purpose, fall under the doctrine of fair use (and they do not illustrate the same thing as the logo does, so there is nothing stopping us from having 2 fair use images in the same article) — and putting them up for deletion all the time like this is detrimental to the encyclopedia. 1799: 2983:? Did you download either of those non-free files from Knowledge (XXG), add the number "16", and then upload the your versoin to Commons? If that's the case, then I think you probably did create a derivative work. You can claim the derivative as "own work" and license it as such if you want, but I don't believe you can make the same claim for the original underlying imagery. "File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png" is sourced to this 2626:

information, including the shield/signage used, is provided for the reader is more than sufficient. This is similar to the reasoning used when it comes to non-free cover art being used in discographies, bibliographies, filmographies and such. In such cases, non-free use only tends to be allowed when they are themselves the subject of sourced critical commentary within the list article as explained in

2618:

means of identification in the main infobox or at the top of the article. It's also likely that such an article would be the best place to include a sourced critical commentary about the shield (i.e., it's origin, design, etc.). This is a type of use commonly accepted for non-free logos and other non-free files, so I don't think it would be an issue as long as

1695: 2263:. OK, it seems like we don't have firm evidence that these files are currently in the public domain owing to disagreement about the status of a OTRS ticket and insufficient information on publication/design dates. Thus there is no consensus to change the license away from "Non-free". There is no consensus either that the images satisfy 3384: 3322:

however, OTRS volunteers are unable to agree on the validity of the ticket, then maybe the files should remain non-free until a better ticket is received or subsequent discussions among OTRS volunteers reach a clear consensus that the ticket is acceptable. If the files are to remain non-free, then they are subject to

2992: 3216:. The OTRS ticket does not specify a license (and wasn't directly sent by the copyright holder); therefore, they can't be used as free images (unless they are PD by other means mentioned above, which hasn't been proven). One cannot infer a license; it needs to be explicitly stated by the copyright holder. — 3067:

highway signs in Canada with an official statement that we shouldn't need permission, implying that the signs are Public Domain under Canadian copyright law, but cautioning that photographers should make sure they and passing motorists are safe while they are photographing the signs. Hours after that

2617:

I think it would be perfectly acceptable to use non-free versions of the actual shield imagery in the stand-alone articles about the individual routes themselves if they need to be treted as non-free for copyright license purposes. In such an article, the file would most likely be used as the primary

2058:

regarding Facebook and LinkedIn. With Facebook, the question is whether we should consider Mark Zuckerberg's profile pics to have a separate copyright from Facebook; for LinkedIn, the question is whether those are real users' images or LinkedIn's own advertising property. Ultimately I don't think any

1369:

that use collapsible options in their infoboxes in the exact same way. I find it objectively unfair that I'm being singled out here. To make this discussion on a seemingly widespread practice more fair, I've added nominations for files used in this exact same manner on articles for major websites. In

2670:

I'm not sure what file your referring to when you say "Trans-Canada highway shield". As for changing pngs, etc. to vector versions, I think it would be better to use a official vector version released by the original copyright holder instead. There's some disagreement as to whether user-created svgs

2956:

is not that a free equivalent currently exists, but whether it's considered possible for someone somehwere to create one. Since you're saying you used a template to create the free equivalent image File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png, then there's no reason somebody cannot do the same

2888:

If these can be converted to PD for one reason or another, then they would much easier to use in articles such as the list article because they would not be subject to Knowledge (XXG)'s non-free content use policy. Otherwise, I agree that a generic shield can and should be used in the list article;

2755:

As I mention below, we have clearance for crown copyright, which is 50 years, January 1st, after publication. Provincial copyright falls under crown copyright. If there is any proof these signs existed in or prior to 1967, we have no issue and these are public domain. The question is whether we can

2655:

So what would be a workaround solution? I've seen some provincial highway shields where certain symbols were modified to vectors in order to become commons files. As far as the Yellowhead marker is concerned, how could that be done? What was done so the Trans-Canada highway shield could be used en

2560:

The file's non-free use seems fine in the stand-alone articles about each route. It is only in the list article, where I feel their use is decorative. Whether they are actual representations of what is seen by drivers is a different question and if they are not then perhaps they shouldn't be being

2727:

which can be used, but you can use your own wording as well. As long as you cover the main points of what makes ups a suitable free license for Commons use, then you should be fine. The BCMoT, however, cannot just declare that the file is PD/freely release for Knowledge (XXG)/educational purposes

2014:

I agree that the screenshot should be visible by default. If hiding a certain piece of information is "the best way to show them in the article", it is a strong indication that such information is not really that essential to the article topic, because the underlying assumption is that hiding the

1995:

Thanks PhilipTerryGraham for tagging me. I just (re-?)added the criticism section as it appears that advocates have removed it. Anyway, I think that having a screen shot or collapsible items to the infobox depends on each case. In Chemistry and when we have loads of different transliterations and

3321:

on Yunshui's user talk, but I'll summarize it here. Multiple OTRS volunteers have looked as this OTRS ticket and there is disagreement among them regarding its validity. This is not something non-OTRS volunteers cannot directly participate in because we are not privy to the same information. If,

2863:

Can we determine the age of these? If these were designed before December 31, 1967, they are public domain under federal law (which also applies to provincial governments, but not municipal). We have clearance from the Canadian government that expiration of crown copyright applies worldwide over

3350:

in the OTRS ticket. The email relates to SK, not BC. Even if it were for SK, the representative saying we don't need permission is not the same as disclaiming copyright. The ticket doesn't provide any statement of permission that Wikimedia can use (a direct release under a free license), so the

3075:'s concern; I have not heard back from him, and the copies bounced with "no such user" errors (not surprising after seven years). I appreciate the abundance of caution used by uploaders, NFCC taggers, and the nominator in this case, but I do not think such caution is warranted in this case. — 2545:

as part of the larger discussion as to whether they should be classified as "non-free". On the ground, the representation of the these highways is shown by those shields, not the standard provincial shields, so I would argue that the usage is more than decorative. Trans-Canada shields are shown

2835:

is a free image which you created. I'm not sure it's free (more on that below); however, if it is, then you have indeed created a free equivalent which means you or someone else can repeat the process and do the same for the three non-free being discussed here. This would make keeping non-free

2625:

I don't think the same can be said about the list article where the file is being used to illustrate one entry among many. These entries just provide some basic information about each route and identification by name alone and links to the more detailed individual articles where more specific

2633:

If the files being used in the individual articles are incorrect, then they should be replaced. In the list article, however, any PD file's currently used in that article are inaccurate representations can be removed as well, but removing them does not automatically mean replacing them with a

1186: 2935:

I have re-added the images, as they should not be removed until this discussion is closed. In addition, There are, as I stated, no free equivalents of these signs, and the Route 16 sign was one I made, yes, however I am not good enough at my editing to successfully recreate the rest.

2501:. I believe the rationales were added in good-faith; I just think this type of non-free use can be justified per current policy and moreover appear to just be copied-and-pasted ones which don't really specifically address the particular ways the files are being used. Suggest 2740:

did with repsect to the Saskatchewan road signs discussed in those two Commons DRs I linked to above in my previous post. SriMesh seems to still be active editing so perhaps you can ask for some suggestions on how to best approach the BCMot on their user talk. --

281: 1676:

Like several others above, I also find the use of collapsed infoboxes very useful. Just to pull another analogy, you have the SMILES and InCHi data which are also collapsed. This isn't about OTHERSTUFF, this is about precedent. These things are on occasion

2271:

when used in list articles, and "as they pose an enormous amount of significance to the page" is a weak argument. Since non-free policy discourages using non-free images except in particular cases, it seems like lack of consensus here should mean removal.

3097:. So, if for some reason these cannot be converted from non-free to a free license (perhaps because technically they are not photographs), they will have to be deleted because someone could drive up to one of the actual signs and photograph them. -- 2059:

of this should hinge on the stylistic decision of whether or not to collapse -- a screenshot has been pretty well established as a legitimate use for articles about websites, and stylistic decisions about how to display them can happen elsewhere. —

2453:. Each of the files is being used in a stand-alone article about the highways in question as the primary means of identification in the main infobox. This type of decorative usage in more general list articles, however, is almost never allowed per 2728:

only; so, the BCMoT needs to undertand that they cannot restrict commercial or derivative use. Ideally, if they were tto agree to such a thing, the best thing would be for someone at the BCMoT to uploaded a version of the file to Commons using

571:

It is now clear to me that attempting to use historical fair use was a stretch at best. I had no other reason to upload the file other than to add it to the disamb page, which apparently is in itself an NFCC vio. Thank you for clarification. :]

2999:, so I don't think (but not 100% sure) that the original imagery is free from copyright protection. If the original imagery is not PD or otherwise released under a free license, then I don't think Commons can keep your version of the file. -- 1621:

I personally think that collapsed screenshots are the best way to show them in the article. Website screenshots serve an important purpose on Knowledge (XXG), for example they can show what the website previously looked like, as the case with

2805:, I apologize for it not being there before, however I did not realize that it was implicated here. Lastly, I wish to add that if the owner of the images, (or the uploader), take issue with there use, I will gladly remove them. I suggest 2598:

actually provide an inaccurate representation of what drivers would see. As such, there should be some sort of solution to be able to include those images in other articles such as highway lists and road junction lists while maintaining

2546:

throughout (as well as Interstate, US, and SR route shields for US articles), so Yellowhead and Crowsnest shields should be r evisited. I'm not sure about the intricacies of image copyright law, but IMO that should be the end goal.

2951:

A free equivlent image does not have to be recreated by you; it can be recreated by anyone. It also doesn't have to be recreated right at this moment; it can be created at anytime. What tends to matter with respect to

2840:. Even if they cannot be reproduced exactly, the official non-free version might be able to be kept for the stand-alone articles, and a user-created representation could possibly be created for use in the list article. 245: 2683:

is licensed as non-free, and that element is what seems to be the only thing copyrightable in the Yellowhead shield files; if that can be shown to be PD, then the others could also most likely be treated as PD. --

3056: 3019: 2864:

URAA. If they are newer, I see no reason we can't use the generic shield on list articles. That withstanding, the use in the infobox of the article of the particular route qualify as acceptible free-use. -

1946:

That is not a rationale under any interpretation of fair use law, and it has no support in any Knowledge (XXG) policy. In addition it's also false, the Twitter login page shows nothing of the sort.

3380: 2988: 2042:

Flickr, DeviantArt, Pornhub, and Youtube, as they include unambiguous copyrighted works other than that for which the NFCC would apply (i.e. the image is not being used to illustrate those works).

409:. This probably should've just been removed without any discussion. Also, the rationale's claim that this is a historically significant meeting between two sportspersons with the same name is just 1239: 2918:

was founded in 1949, the are the origional copyright holders of the yellow head and trees logo. The various provinces produced their own variations within their respective highway templates. --

2414: 1080: 2522:

as some of the other files used in the article are licensed, then there would be no longer any non-free concerns and the files could be used. It should be noted though that a file such as

2361: 2308: 921: 2705:

Nevermind re: the Trans-Canada, it's more than 50 years old. Is there a process or form letter we can send to the BCMoT requesting permission to use the Yellowhead 5 shield as PD? --

128: 1856: 469:. Removing the file does from that page not require any discussion, and it could even be argued that this is a candidate for speedy deletion as replaceable non-free content per 2630:. This type of use is not exactly the same as using a non-free album cover in a discography article, but it's similar enough in my opinion for the same reasoning to be applied. 868: 1969:, so we can conclude that we should issue a non-free rationale for each individual picture in the screenshots, which we cannot do because it fails the minimal use criterion. 512:

somehwere within that article supported by multiple independent reliable sources to justify this type of use. I don't see how it can be done, but maybe someone else does. --

2015:

information is the best way of presenting the article to the readers. Otherwise, one would not want to hide such information at all. This is also in line with the idea of

3393:

So, if there's any information from those websites which can be used to show these images are PD because of their age or lack of complexity, then that's fine with me. --

3090: 3031: 2980: 2832: 2794: 2523: 1178: 1027: 1133: 974: 815: 1292: 1170: 2672: 2565:. This is what needs to be clarified before anything else because this is what basically determines whether a file may be kept and how it may be used if it is. -- 2200: 2161: 664: 89: 38: 33: 2843:

As for being your own work, I'm not so sure. If you're basing your "own work" on another copyrighted image, then there's a good chance it would be considered a

2797:

is my own work, as I saved a template of a blank Yellowhead sign, and added the number "16" myself, before uploading under it's current name. I will also add a

273: 1911:

as copyright violations since they contain individual images that are not under copyright by the website, but rather require separate non-free rationales, per

1821:

C1CC2(C1)CC(N2C(=O)C3CC4=CC=CC=C4CN3C(=O)(CO)NC(=O)(CC5=CC=CS5)NC(=O)CNC(=O)C6C(CN6C(=O)C7CCCN7C(=O)C(CCCN=C(N)N)NC(=O)(CCCN=C(N)N)N)O)C(=O)N(CCCN=C(N)N)C(=O)O

2719:

Just for reference, I moved your post because I think this is where you wanted it to go. If I'm wrong, please move it back. As for emailing someone, there is

2450: 1813: 2676: 265: 161: 2512:

However, there might be some question as to whether these files need to be treated as non-free content to begin with. If it's possible to convert them to

2406: 3060: 2300: 1153: 1047: 888: 835: 703: 484: 209: 2054:

Polygon and Yahoo, as I would be surprised if their use of the images on the page were not either fair use or licensed from a third party owner.

1881:

Whether the reader chooses to click on it is of lesser concern, and when we know that very few readers will do so, it is a good idea to hide it.

301: 2793:

I disagree with removing the images, as they pose an enormous amount of significance to the page, an NO free equivalents exist. The sign for

2398: 221: 2050:

Reddit because while it contains other copyrighted works, they're practically invisible and therefore there's a solid de minimis argument.

1206: 1161: 1100: 1055: 896: 843: 239: 227: 120: 3034:

can now be used to create freely licensed derivatives, which means that any non-free files of the same Yellowhead shield imagery now fail

3298:

due to age, lose their fair use rationales, and stay on the lists as a result of this discussion. Please see the ancillary discussion at

2292: 1157: 1051: 892: 839: 309: 215: 2603:. If they need to stay as non-free, then that's what it has to be; however if they are misclassified, then that should be explored. -- 3068:

DR closed, I emailed the person who made that statement with copies to his CC recipients to update the ticket to modern standards per

305: 233: 2561:

used in any articles regardless of their licensing. The "first goal" when it comes to using images on Knowledge (XXG) has to do with

3431: 3198: 2281: 2173: 2095: 1833: 1214: 1108: 994: 941: 788: 676: 101: 17: 2976: 3318: 2434: 2381: 2328: 1915: 1231: 1210: 1104: 1019: 1072: 1710: 1125: 966: 807: 112: 56: 2485:. Rationales have since been added for two of the three articles, but the primary justification for their use as explained at 2353: 2873: 2765: 1002: 949: 913: 2542: 1223: 1370:

addition to the uploaders of the files nominated for discussion, I've pinged to the discussion the following contributors:

1064: 2679:. Maybe there's some information in those two Commons DRs which can be helpful here. It should be pointed out though that 2442: 2389: 2336: 2192: 1259: 998: 945: 3413: 3172: 3146: 3117: 3023: 2802: 2498: 2345: 2077: 2020: 860: 3363: 3250: 3228: 2438: 2385: 2332: 1312: 905: 779:. Any issues with the present use of each file on their website's article is more amenable to an individual discussion. 388: 3454: 2251: 2223: 2148: 2118: 756: 726: 651: 621: 181: 151: 76: 1599: 1143: 1037: 1011: 878: 825: 203: 1605: 1611: 1284: 852: 2595: 1267: 1117: 958: 799: 736: 598: 577: 504:; however, that is something which would require a very strong justification for non-free usage to meet NFCC#1 and 342: 291: 1996:

names, they should be collapsed by default, but a poster of a movie or an album, it should be visible by default.

1331:, indicating that its omission would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of this article, thus violating 1320: 1263: 3373:

I'm going to repost this here since it's buried in one of my earlier posts on this thread and is easy to miss.

2733: 1645: 417:; an interesting meeting perhaps, but nothing historical about it all unless reliable sources are saying so. -- 3376: 3292: 2984: 2184: 2128: 1588: 1578: 1384: 1316: 1276: 1196: 1090: 501: 3346:

If they are PD due to age, that is one thing. (This needs to be proven.) There is no evidence that BC (or SK)

414: 3427: 3194: 2277: 2169: 2091: 784: 695: 672: 97: 3300:

User talk:Yunshui#Knowledge (XXG):Files for discussion/2018 June 5#Non-free road signs used in list article

2844: 2494: 2470: 771: 3030:

and it's licensing can be converted to an appropriate free license. However, this also seems to mean that

2923: 2710: 2661: 2634:

non-free image: they simply can be replaced by a generic shield placeholder image, or no image at all. --

2608: 2551: 198: 2972: 2680: 334:

It helps users navigate to the two of the three most common targets of the disambiguation page, as shown

3450: 2247: 2219: 2144: 2114: 2003: 984: 931: 752: 722: 647: 617: 594: 573: 338: 177: 147: 72: 3435: 3402: 3368: 3339: 3311: 3255: 3233: 3202: 3163: 3137: 3106: 3084: 3047: 3008: 2966: 2945: 2927: 2902: 2879: 2856: 2818: 2771: 2750: 2729: 2714: 2693: 2665: 2643: 2612: 2574: 2555: 2535: 2458: 2285: 2177: 2099: 2068: 2032: 2007: 1985: 1956: 1937: 1891: 1665: 1639: 1615: 1344: 792: 687: 680: 631: 602: 581: 560: 521: 448: 426: 393: 360: 346: 328: 258: 105: 2526:

is almost certainly not "own work", which is something requiring further discussion from Commons. --

2424: 2371: 2318: 1623: 1495: 3327: 3213: 2454: 2264: 1467: 3398: 3391:, so I don't think (but not 100% sure) that the original imagery is free from copyright protection. 3335: 3102: 3043: 3004: 2962: 2898: 2852: 2746: 2689: 2639: 2587: 2570: 2531: 2061: 1511: 517: 422: 253: 3022:, it now seems possible that the same OTRS ticket referred to in that discussion might also cover 1686: 3423: 3282: 3265: 3238:

The ticket is also for SK, not BC. I don't see how a representative for SK could speak for BC. —

3190: 2516: 2273: 2165: 2087: 780: 668: 500:

The only real merit to discussing this here is to determine whether it could possibly be used in

93: 3323: 3027: 2474: 2831:

You're also arguing that no free equivalents exist for any of these images, yet you state that

3307: 3299: 3127: 3091:

c:User talk:Jeff.G#Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png

3080: 2941: 2919: 2889:

each list entry has a link and the reader can see the proper sign/shield there per item #6 of

2814: 2732:; If they don't want to do this, however, then someone from the BCMoT will like have to email 2706: 2657: 2604: 2547: 2486: 1980: 1249: 556: 3094: 3035: 2953: 2837: 2619: 2482: 2466: 2268: 1966: 1332: 548: 544: 540: 536: 505: 466: 462: 458: 406: 402: 373: 316: 3357: 3244: 3222: 2240:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

2137:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

1999: 1742: 1648:

as a tool in a content dispute. I haven't got anything much against collapsed screenshots.--

1635: 1527: 1455: 1393: 1302: 745:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

640:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

382: 170:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

65:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

3449: