Commons:Deletion requests/File:NASA's Hubble Shows Milky Way is Destined for Head-on Collision with Andromeda Galaxy.tif: Difference between revisions

File:NASA's Hubble Shows Milky Way is Destined for Head-on Collision with Andromeda Galaxy.tif

The image credits include A. Mellinger,[1] and he doesn't seem to generally release his images under a free license (e.g. [2]). He is listed in the illustration credits, but not the science credits, which suggests to me that he might well hold a copyright over the image (together with STScI and ESA, which do freely release many of their images). --Avenue (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep, those are his personal images. He works for NASA and by law has to release his images under Public Domain. Dipankan001 (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No, he works for Central Michigan University,[3] and seems to be an amateur astronomer, not a professional. If you can demonstrate that his contribution to this image was done under contract to NASA, that might change things, but that seems unlikely from what I've seen so far. --Avenue (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Hubble's copyright notice states they're under contract: "Material credited to STScI on this site was created, authored, and/or prepared for NASA under Contract NAS5-26555". And that image is not totally Mr Mellinger's image, many have contributed, so it must be in Public domain. Got it? Dipankan001 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Just because the image is not entirely Mellinger's creation does not mean it must be in the public domain. From Commons:Collages: "you cannot distribute the collage as a public domain work unless all of the works in it are in the public domain", i.e. a single non-PD element is enough to make a collage non-PD. See also Commons:Derivative works. --Avenue (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Delete "So it must be" is NEVER a good argument, compare COM:PRP. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Delete Keep "Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and it may be freely used as in the public domain.." quote from the site. This image is not otherwise specifically stated.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry. I misread the fine print. I changed my vote to delete for reasons stated.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No one is saying that STScI is claiming copyright. I am saying that Alex Mellinger could quite possibly hold a copyright over the image, e.g. if his Milky Way panorama was used to help make it. It's good that STScI don't claim copyright over the images on their website, but their statement has no force over other authors' copyrights. --Avenue (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be an issue between Alex Mellenger and STScI. WMF and the uploader's asses are covered in any court because we have a link to a public domain image released by NASA. You could try emailing Alex Mellenger and see what he says? axel.mellinger@arcormail.de or alex.mellinger@cmich.edu --Canoe1967 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
      • IANAL, but I don't think the courts would see it the way you think. I had thought about emailing Dr Mellinger, but our usual templates aren't meant for situations this complex (derivative works by multiple authors, possibly with different licenses or public domain status from the various creators, e.g. ESA releases some images under a CC-BY-3.0-Unported license[4]). I'd prefer to hold off contacting him until we establish more clearly what we'd need to ask him. By the way, in general the onus should be on the uploader (or the people wanting to keep the image) to document that it is released with suitable permissions, not on editors who think we should delete it. --Avenue (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Question: The ESA is also listed in the image credits. Would they hold a copyright over the image? If so, have they released the image under a free license? They seem to have different policies for images on various websites, e.g. Hubble photos are free (CC-BY), while images in their Portal Multimedia Gallery don't allow commercial or misleading use (i.e. are non-free). --Avenue (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Question: Should someone just email copyright@stsci.edu and ask about the image in question? That is the email on their copyright page for questions and reporting. News Release Number: STScI-2012-20 is their file number for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• I am going to tag it with speedy copyvio. The site's usage rules are a little confusing and this image does not meet their PD criteria.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This is certainly not the thing to do. There is no support for a speedy deletion. There is already a DR. Let the proper procedure goes. Yann (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I do now believe that is a copyvio though. The site states that all images have a 'credit line'. If STScI is the only credit then they are public domain, if others are listed they need to be contacted about usage. See the copyright page linked from the bottom of the image page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • For speedy deletion, the question is not whether it is a copyvio, but whether it is an clear copyvio. I think there's a case that it's probably a copyvio, but I don't think it's entirely obvious. For one thing, being credited for an image is not the same thing as holding a copyright over it. People give credit for all sorts of reasons; copyright is often the least of their concerns. --Avenue (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I think we are agreeing on the same point. The licence tag for the image doesn't fit because the public domain criteria is not met on the site?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Vous êtes fous! C'est <Wikipedia> entreprise obscurantiste et négationiste que je propose à la suppression... Jutin Cé! le 12.06.2012.
      • If you say that this Hubble image is otherwise specifically stated, know that every Hubble image has 2 or more persons included in the credit. The joint agreement has led to the being of public domain of this image. Dipankan001 (talk)
• I may change my vote again. The same image is on the NASA site. Their image usage says that it is public domain. http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html Should we just re-upload from the NASA site with the more clear public domain policy? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/milky-way-collide.html is the image. I downloaded the video and need to convert it to .ogg.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • They don't directly say this image is in the public domain, just "NASA still images" in general. They do say "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted." Whether NASA's illustration credits are sometimes meant to indicate copyright is still unclear to me. --Avenue (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Delete Mellinger does not appear to have any connection to this research, but he is the creator of an impressive high-resolution image of the Milky Way as seen from Earth.[5] It seems reasonable to conclude that he is credited for the illustration because his image was used to help create it. This would make the illustration a derivative work of his image, so it would not be in the public domain. --Avenue (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The idea was given by NASA. Several artists contributed to the image and jointly released in in the PD. Mellinger doesn't have the image uploaded in his own site, which means that he must release his image in the PD by NASA. That's simple. Dipankan001 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)