Commons:Deletion requests/File:The remnant of the supernova SN 1006 seen at many different wavelengths.tiff

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.

File:The remnant of the supernova SN 1006 seen at many different wavelengths.tiff

[edit]

This image is comprised of multiple elements (layers), and the only element that is not copyrighted is the X-ray source by NASA's Chandra telescope. Thus, this image is non-free and should be deleted. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the copyright notice of ESO (http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/copyright/), who publicated the image, in detail:
Q: Do I need to contact all the people named in the credit line for permission to use an image or video?
A: No. Images and videos published on eso.org are, unless explicitly stated otherwise, 
   cleared for reuse without needing to contact the individuals or organisations listed. 
   Their names must not be removed from the credit, however.
In conclusion, permission is provided by ESO.
BR, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ESO cannot release copyright on material they do not have copyright on. In this specific instance, there are four elements to consider.
  • "Radio: NRAO/AUI/NSF/GBT/VLA/Dyer, Maddalena & Cornwell, X-ray: Chandra X-ray Observatory; NASA/CXC/Rutgers/G. Cassam-Chenaï, J. Hughes et al., Visible light: 0.9-metre Curtis Schmidt optical telescope; NOAO/AURA/NSF/CTIO/Middlebury College/F. Winkler and Digitized Sky Survey."
  • Radio material is by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, operating the Green Belt Telescope. Their work is copyrighted.
  • X-ray material is by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. This is public domain.
  • Visible light material is by National Optical Astronomy Observatory, operating the Curtis Schmidt telescope. Their work is copyrighted.
  • Additional visible light material is by the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Array, as mentioned outside the credit line. This work is CC-by-3.0.
By crediting outside organisations in that credit line, ESO is explicitly "stating otherwise" with regard to the license. ESO cannot unilaterally declare another agency or organisation's works as freely licensed any more than a Roskosmos image is released simply by appearing on a NASA website. Our situation here is the same as if you mixed elements of a NASA image (public domain) and an ESA image (copyrighted). The result would be copyrighted and thus unacceptable for Commons. The least-free element in a work is what you have to base the resulting license on. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course ESO cannot release copyright other people hold. I was thinking along a different line: NRAO/NOAO can perfectly not allow to use their images commercially without permission. But they can grant the permission to publish a derivative work based on thier image under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
The afore mentioned Q&A does not make sense if a credit to another institution inherently means, that reuse is not cleared.
Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS.: What about File:Supernova Remnant SN 1006.jpg?
Thanks for pointing out that second copy, missed it somehow. I've added it to the request.
As to your other points, within the astrophotography community there seems to be a significant disregard for the consequences of copyright status. They're great at providing attribution though. It cannot be assumed in these cases that permission was explicitly obtained or that copyright issues have been resolved. Remember that Commons operates on the precautionary principle. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the astrophotography community are some issues, in fact: Examples are chandra images at whole, were their website does not provide commercial permission and we have only an OTRS-Ticket from a person in their organization, who says it's ok. Is this person entitled to give wikimedia this permission?
I will follow your argumentation, if you have an evidence (e.g. an email from NOAO) that ESO has maken a mistake. Keep in mind, ESO is amenable to law for the copyright of their publication. We had this discussion already some time ago, in File_talk:M101_hires_STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg.
Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) I have not examined the Chandra situation in detail, but as a NASA funded mission, the non-commercial condition is complete bunk...those images are in the public domain regardless of Harvard's wishes. I've not seen that DR you mention, but to me the arguments seem very flawed. Of course, this is just my opinion. I'd very much like to see others' input on this. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is linked to File:The_Cool_Clouds_of_Carina.jpg and File:Eta_Carinae_Nebula_1.jpg, which on the one hand have NOAO images included, on the other are featured pictures in wikipedia/wikimedia, too. Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please add a summary / conclusion? Thank you. --Krd 21:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming these files as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 21:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_remnant_of_the_supernova_SN_1006_seen_at_many_different_wavelengths.tiff&oldid=139110046"