Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from FlightGlobal Archive

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Most Files in Category:Images from FlightGlobal Archive

[edit]

The files listed below all have a custom license that involves quoting the editor of Flight Global writing "one thing I am happy to do from this moment on is agree the reuse on Wikipedia of any material from the actually PDFs in the archive (as long as there is a credit and link back to the original)." The files are then tagged with one of CC-0, PD, CC-by or CC-by-sa (!) license.

Unfortunately the statement of the editor ("I don’t object to use on Wikipedia") does not go far enough (we want "I irrevocably publish under CC-xyz") for publication on Commons. This has been discussed before. These files need to be deleted.

Please, before you grab the pitchforks, let me assure you that

  • I understand that these files are generally very valuable (many are the only depiction of one type of aircraft that we have);
  • I understand that many of those files qualify as PD-old, PD-UKGov, PD-1923, etc. If you want to go through each file to assess the copyright status, please do — no-one has done this yet.

But this does not change the fact that right now we have hundreds of files tagged with a vague statement and licensed by somebody other that the copyright owner.

Best regards,

File list

And additionally:

Ariadacapo (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC) (edited three hours later Ariadacapo (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Move to Wikipedia.
This issue has arisen before, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crusader1117.jpg
The constructive approach would be to move all of these to Wikipedia, where the majority of them would even pass the stronger test of WP:NFCC as historical images from this valuable resource.
However Commons' past response has been the bureaucratic one of simply deleting the lot, without any sort of review. This is because Commons values bureaucracy, and its clique of bureaucrats, far more than it values the encyclopedic project. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: If instead of ranting, you would do some work to help clear the backlog, it would help. Yann (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, go and Corbett off. I know I'm not welcome here. The reason I no longer contribute anything to Commons is because of precisely this sort of bureaucratic back-slapping (and you've been in the thick of it). The cabal in power here, those whose admin and bureaucrat friends will defend them no matter what they get up to, have zero interest in an encyclopedia. An issue like this, that gives them an excuse to do some more Serious Admin Bizniz, is just a gift to the bureaucrats to cause some damage and then to feel goood about it.
Ariadacapo raises a good point (the same one from 2012). Maybe we could fix that by seriously talking licensing to Flight and selling them the Creative Commons "big picture". Maybe the best we can get is WP-only licensing, which WP should then still be happy to accept (the Flight photo collection is a unique and important resource). But so far Commons' clique hasn't done either of these, they've just seen the chance to get to delete more stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, I am not an experienced enough editor to comment on the situation here regarding the bureaucratic side of things. What I would like to say though, is that I put a hell of a lot of work in to sourcing the various images which I have uploaded in this set. And yes in many cases I went to the trouble to fill gaps where aircraft / historical events etc had NO image representing them so my contributions became the ONLY image now doing so. It would be a terrible shame and great loss to lose these immensely valuable images, which support hundreds of WP pages. Please can editors look for a solution to this rather that a deletion! I must admit, I do find it very frustrating that editors so often spend their time undoing other people's work when they could have spent that time fixing the problems and making WM and WP a richer place for all. Surely contacting Flight and requesting the full licence would be the first and most logical step!? Jimmy3d0 (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy Dingley, please be aware that hosting these images in the English Wikipedia is not a solution for the matter here: Feel free to suggest that in en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Aviation_photos_that_belong_to_us,_our_precious! or whatever, but here in Commons we face a wider problem with this DR, which needs addressing properly: We need to find a way to properly keep these images, as a repository hosting media that may be used indeed to illustrate an encyclopedia and also to cater for many other possible uses. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Andy Dingley: Your use of the word "Wikipedia", with no epithets, to mean the English Wikipedia is incorrect, misleading, parochial, and offensive. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By "Wikipedia" I mean a vague superset of those Wikipedias working in languages that I am capable of working with, and those for which there is a relevant article to these largely UK topics. If anyone from the other Wikipedias wants to use the images, then they are of course welcome to. However I suspect that few Wikipedias would allow their hosting, without at least their use in a relevant article. :en:WP wouldn't. If you find this "offensive", then join the queue at AN/U to have me blocked. But of course you'd rather invent someone else's words (why do you even think I meant the English Wikipedia alone?) to give yourself some reason to feel a sense of outrage. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I don't think these images can remain at Commons as that would require a free licence, including commercial use, and these don't have one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: Close this Deletion Request now (yes, I’m holding a pitchfork). People who genuinely have an interest in curating a media repository and know enough about the history of aviation, please go through this list and mark as «PD-old, PD-UKGov, PD-1923, etc» those which qualify for it, and please those closest contact the editor of Flight Global and ask them to change the licensing terms as suggested in the OP. But this should not be done under the threat of imminent deletion. There’s no honour in “clearing” a backlog like this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to keep the images on WP that have been offered for use on WP. Even those that are not otherwise PD.
I do not wish to try and work-around Reed's generous offer to permit this by instead trying to find a back-door to claim that some might be PD, just so we can then publish them to the world as free-licensed commercially-usable media. There are enough monkey selfies already. Commons has offended enough commercial photographers. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I think they cannot be transferred to any Wikipedia wiki as they don't accept images that are for Wikipedia use only. ★ Poké95 10:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thy don't like them (as the intention is to build a free encyclopedia, where possible) but no-one has ever given a policy-based reason why they shouldn't do this. It is accepted that many images on WP (in fact, pretty much all of them that do belong there) are not to be moved to Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because (see above) that's a matter of picking them one-by-one and trying to argue the PD case for individuals. Instead we should try and find some blanket agreement that makes them all available to one or more Wikipedias, as Flight have already offered them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The copyright issue is not that simple. I found that out when I tried to license a digitised image from the British Museum. What follows is how it works in the UK, I can't speak for other countries. The digitising of an image for the Flight archive creates a copyright for that digital edition, attributable to whoever did the copying and over and above the original copyright. When somebody extracts that image from the PDF, that creates a new copyright on the clipped image file, attributable to that person. Not all Flight images were their own copyright, although they have added copyright on the printed image. Thus, for many images there will be four copyrights:
  1. an original copyright, owned by whoever.
  2. a published print copyright, owned also by Flight.
  3. a digitised copyright of the whole pdf page, owned also by Flight.
  4. an extracted image file copyright, owned also by whoever extracted it from the pdf.
Before the Commons can accept an image, all four copyrights must have either been licensed or expired. As an individual we waive our own right by the simple act of uploading to the Commons. But the image may have been extracted by somebody else and strictly we should obtain their consent before uploading it. Flight have consented to the use of the images embedded in their pdfs on "Wikipedia", whatever a lawyer determines that to be. I would assume for the sake of argument that that is any site to be found under wkipedia.org at the time the statement was made (does that include the Commons? I don't know offhand). I would also take it to include the necessary permissions under the printed image copyright. That still leaves the original owner's copyright, which Flight are in no position to license to anybody, and for which many things are possible and the right answer needs rooting out.
That leaves us with a fine pile of what-ifs to clear up for each image. Would copying them all across to say en.wikipedia.org be a useful stopgap? It would resolve the Flight uncertainty but nothing else, it might save the older images and a few others, cropped in person by the uploader. So the way I see it, each image has to face three hurdles:
  1. Do we need to trace the original owner and seek their permission?
  2. Can we persuade Flight to clarify their terms of release, preferably with a proper community license for the pdf version?
  3. Do we need to contact whoever extracted the image or re-extract the image ourselves to ensure permission for the extracted image?
No. 2 is the same for all the images here and it is a no-brainer that somebody should ask Flight on behalf of the WMF.
No. 1 is often worried over but in my (unqualified) opinion, No.3 carries the same weight of law behind it and needs equal consideration.
Where does that leave the Commons? I don't know what our policies are, or how it all works outside the UK, but I would not be surprised to see these images deleted until such time as all of the above 1 – 2 – 3 are sorted file by file and they can begin to make their comebacks. If so, I trust that there will be a few personal stashes - perfectly allowable for private research purposes - downloaded against that day. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is not correct. Rights aren't granted to the publisher or person digitizing the photo (or extracting from a PDF), because in most cases that does not satisfy the originality needed to give someone copyright. See m:Wikilegal/Sweat of the Brow (works in US) & outofcopyright.eu (works in EU). AHeneen (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to hear it. Perhaps you could persuade the British Library to agree with you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-licence as this
|Author={{unknown|Author}} |Permission=free |other_versions= }} == {{int:license-header}} == {{GFDL|migration=relicense}}
There arew images extant on Commons since 2007 with this licece, so by precedent, it must be acceptable--Petebutt (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not an option: this is called license laundering. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvage when possible, delete the rest The handful that I've browsed appear to be scans of images to which Flight Global likely doesn't own the copyright (but they may have permission from the copyright owner to use them), while many may be old enough that they are in the public domain. However, keep in mind that the date of first publication is the date that determines copyright, not the date an image was taken. AHeneen (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read more carefully: the archive says as long they are credited and linked, the editor agrees on the reuse in Wikipedia. That’s not "free to use" by our definition. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consult, but delete unless adequate licensing information is provided
Quick thoughts. I'd echo the points made above by various editors that any file on the Commons must be free for use. In this case, that might be either because:
  • Flight Global owned the original copyright to the image, and has explicitly authorised its use under an appropriate license;
  • The image is free for use in the US and the country of first publication. This typically requires a date of creation and of publication, and often the details of the photographer.
At the moment, we don't have clarity on whether Flight Global has licensed the images for free use, or that they owned the copyright etc. in order to be able to release their use in this way. If the email sent off doesn't back with confirmation, this justification isn't sufficient, however. We'd then need to check each image for positive evidence that it was free for use. For many of the images I've looked at, there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to keep them; e.g. File:Orenco D 010420 p363.png has no evidence of original publication date or author; it would therefore still be protected under US law at the very least and therefore not free for use. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tuválkin until those with clear and obvious statuses can be sorted out and a reasonable amount of time passes to hear back from FG about the issue. If there is no response or the response is negatory, then the status of the remaining images can be discussed, instead of the baby being thrown at the bathwater - The Bushranger (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a little ridiculous. I uploaded a few pics to Wikipedia, then was encouraged to upload to Wikimedia CC. Some were even moved to CC from WP. If they were uploaded to WP then moved to CC, surely you could just put them back where they were and that's that.
    As for mine, someone did not bother to look very hard at the descriptions, just add them to the delete list and make me work it all out and plead their cases - indeed, I am beginning to see why Andy is so annoyed with you all.
  1. File:Westland limousine line drawing from Flight 1921.JPG : 2015-1921 = 94 years old
  2. File:Westland Pterodactyl 2 seater flying wing 1 inc description.JPG : 2015-1928 = 87 years old
  3. File:Westland Pterodactyl 2 seater flying wing below view.JPG : once again, 87 years old.
Copyright law 1995 says:
The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995
1995 No. 3297 > Part II > Copyright > Regulation 5
"(3) If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires—
(a)at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or
(b)if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,"
Link to page on .gov.uk
Clearly, any pics/drawings that are anonymous in FG mags issued before 1946 are fair game in the UK as of 1st Jan 2016
Moreover, if
  • it turns out the photographers were FG staff they will all be 70 years
  • Flight magazine is owned by FlightGlobal, published by them since 1901, and copyright is still theirs on the pubs, so they have given permission for screen grabs on WP already and the point is moot
    link to their history
    link to their about us page with the jpg on it
So, if anyone wants some help going through and retagging them, I will help as much as I can. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment — It is not helpful to blankly tell other editors to sift through hundreds of files and evaluate their copyright status. User:Nigel Ish has courageously started doing the actual work. Besides this and trying to get through to Flight Global I don’t see much that helps. Complaining that your uploads are nominated for deletion after you put a made-up license on them certainly does not. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, as per Template:PD-UK-unknown, even for works published over 70 years ago, you are required by UK law to have exercised "reasonable enquiry" to determine the author or photographer for the specific image before relying on the "anonymous" clause in the legislation; the Commons requires that a description of this is recorded on the individual file to ensure we comply with the law. There's no evidence of reasonable enquiry having being exercised in these cases. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft letter to editor of Flight Global

[edit]

A letter I intend to send as an e-mail tomorrow. Does anyone want to sign it with me? (please, no endless nit-picking about details here!) Ariadacapo (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Madam or Sir Chief Editor,

I am writing on behalf of a group of editors at Wikimedia Commons, a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization behind Wikipedia. We seek your comments regarding the copyright licensing of a number of images extracted from the archives of Flight Global magazine.

Currently, 581 images from the Flight Global archives have been uploaded in our database; they are visible at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_FlightGlobal_Archive . All are black-and-white documents in low resolution. Originally, these files had been uploaded directly on Wikipedia, as approved by the Editor Flight Global xxxxxxxxxxxxx in February 2009. Mr. Targett had then written: "…However one thing I am happy to do from this moment on is agree the reuse on Wikipedia of any material from the actually PDFs in the archive (as long as there is a credit and link back to the original). By this I mean that any reference in the text can be used and importantly any of the images replicated in the PDFs can be used. It's not a perfect solution as there would have to be an element of screen grabbing the images and saving and formatting etc ... However the images in many cases would still enhance a large number of Wikipedia entries and, from my point of view, the images are obviously not of a high enough resolution to be reused in print by a random commercial entity."

Later, these files were transferred from the English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons, which allows and encourages their usage not only across Wikipedias of all languages, but also in other websites, printed works, and projects of all kinds.

Today, as we review the licensing of those files from Flight Global, we find that there is uncertainty regarding their copyright status, as the waiver from Mr. Targett seems insufficient to permit uses beyond Wikipedia. We therefore seek your input, so as to permit us to keep these images on-line.

Since they have been uploaded, these images have been curated by a number of passionate volunteers, and they are now featured in several hundred Wikipedia articles in a dozen languages, where they are often the sole available illustration. This contribution from Flight Global has been invaluable. To us, these images have both historical significance and educational value. We would be devastated if they were to be deleted.

In order to maintain the images available for re-use, we would need a permission from you to publish these images under a clear and well-established copyright license. The main licenses available for use in our project are :

  • The CC-0 (Creative Commons Zero) Waiver – by which Flight Global would waive all copyright rights associated with the photos;
  • The CC-by (Creative Commons Attribution) license — by which Flight Global would allow all types of re-use in all mediums, but require every time that Flight Global be attributed as the source and owner of the image;
  • The CC-by-sa (Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike), which is like the CC-by license, but where in addition to attribution of Flight Glboal, the requirement would be that the medium using the image be itself licensed under the same license.

These licenses, whose text we encourage you to read carefully, have been used successfully for millions of works and been successfully upheld in a number of court cases. They are thus a safe choice and a better, clearer guarantee for us than the waiver of Mr. Targett.

Would you please publish those 581 files under such a license?

We thank you very much for your consideration. In the wait for your answer, let us offer our thanks on behalf of hundreds of editors and many thousands of readers, for having shared your archives with the world and made such an improvement to Wikipedia possible.

Yours respectfully,

xxxxxxxxxxxxx, a.k.a editor Ariadacapo
xxxxxxxxxxxxx, a.k.a editor Steelpillow
xxxxxxxxxxxxx, a.k.a. editor TSRL

I just sent the e-mail via https://www.flightglobal.com/contact-us/ . I could not find out the name of the current editor so I left the text as-is (with URLs for the licenses). I’ll be writing here as soon as I get an answer. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2015-12-08, 1 week on: still no answer (they did subscribe me to their mass-mailing thing however). I will try and give a call tomorrow. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could not get through to the person I was directed to on the phone (Gaby Davis, if I heard correctly). Will try again tomorrow. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
xxxxxxxxxxxxx is web and media editor these days. I couldn't see a phone number but his email is xxxxxxxxxxxxx@flightglobal.com. Worth a shot?TSRL (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you TSRL! I sent an email (editing the text accordingly) to that address. This afternoon I tried repeatedly to call the Sutton and London offices but did not succeed in talking to anyone. I will keep trying and report accordingly. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ariadacapo. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit for 2015-12-11 (Friday): still no-one answering the phone (maybe they filter international mobiles and skype?). Will try again from Monday 14th onwards. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2015-12-14 (Monday): got through to a human (!) at a reception but all the phones I get redirected to are answering machines. I shall not despair, and I keep trying. If anyone wants to try also, please do! Ariadacapo (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2015-12-17: Victory! Just got an e-mail answer from Head of Strategy at Flightglobal who is ok with licensing the images as CC-by-sa. I am about to reply right now, directing them to OTRS, so we can have a precise and definite record. I will report back here as soon as I get more information. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even when we get this permission, we will still needto ve careful about use of the images from Flight - for some images they won't own the copyright in the first place (agency pictures and the like) and so cannot release the file under a free license.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they could confirm explicitly which images they are releasing, and that they own the relevant copyright to them, that would certainly be helpful. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That’s all in the standard consent letter & the instructions therefor, but it would be a good idea to prompt the publishers to give these details careful attention, in order to avoid future questions.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my last mail to them I have asked them to precisely define the scope of the content that they were releasing. Quoting myself then (without the hyperlinks): "There are two things which need to be defined: 1)The scope. For example you may wish to license “all the images from the on-line Flight magazine archive at from 1909-1980”. Alternatively, “all 581 files in the Wikimedia Commons Category:Images from the Flightglobal Archive as of 17th December 2015”. This needs to be precise enough that no-one, for example, interprets this as an authorization to upload an image from Flight International on Wikipedia. 2) The attribution: how you wish to be attributed on every image page. For example: “Flight magazine archive from Flightglobal”. Once these items are defined, please send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the following text […] [template text from OTRS follows]".
I am not too worried about copyright ownership, since they own the rights to and already re-published the archives of Flight. If some images have since become part of the public domain, this is not an issue (no-one will get sued because of this) and we can correct those licenses progressively. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is an important element for the wiki, though, Ariadacapo. You can have the right to use an image in your magazine, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have the right from the author to then re-authorise its use. That's why when we release material to the Commons under the CC-Attribution-Share Alike license, for example, we sign up to "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license..." It is important that if Flight state they are licensing an image under CC-by-sa, that they also state that they are the copyright holder of the work. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2015-12-30: I have had no news since my last mail on 2015-12-17. I just asked OTRS whether they received something; if not, I will ping Flightglobal. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing from the OTRS side, ping e-mail was sent this morning. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on individual files

[edit]
Really these need to be reviewed individually - some comments on individual files:
File:Orenco D 010420 p363.png and File:Orenco B 010420 p363.png - both 1920 photos of US subjects - {{PD-US-1923}} appears to apply here - Keep
File:Aeromarine 50 B-2 250320 p339.png and File:Aeromarine 40 250320 p339.png - also 1920 US photos [1]- {{PD-US-1923}} - keep
File:Cropmaster573.jpg - 1958 Australian photo - post 1 January 1955 so {{PD-Australia}} does not apply - likely to still be copyright - Delete.
File:PW F401 engine for XFV-12 fighter.JPG - delete - 1974 US photo, uncredited in the apparent source [2] - likely to still be in copyright.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Thomas-Morse MB-4 250320 p350.png and File:Thomas-Morse MB-4 rear 250320 p350.png - two more Pre-1923 US photos - hence {{PD-US-1923}}, so Keep.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:KAI-14 2.png, File:KAI-14 3.png, File:KAI-14 3a.jpg, File:KAI-14 4.jpg, File:KAI-14 1.png - all 1965 images from the UK (either drawings or photos). If the author is unknown then copyright runs 70 years post publication, and if the author is known, 70 years post death of author, so all of these are still in copyright - Delete.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gloster Goring - seaplane.png, File:Gloster Goring - landpllane.png, File:Gloster Goring - flying.png and File:Gloster Goring - taxying.png - all are from this 1924 article in Flight and are credited as Flight photographs. {{PD-UK-unknown}} would I think apply here, so Keep.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sohaj 2 at Camphill.png - 1954 UK photo - still in copyright until 2024 - Delete.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Arpin1353.jpg - 1938 UK photo from [3]. All three photos in the article appear to credited as "Flight photographs". {{PD-UK-unknown}}, so Keep.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Only if evidence is given in the file description of the reasonable research conducted to ascertain the identity of the original photographer - which is required for the PD-UK-unknown to be valid under UK law. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I kept or deleted the above according to Nigel Ish's assessment. Yann (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The UK-anonymous claims are still lacking the evidence of reasonable enquiry required by UK law and the Wiki license tag. Without that evidence, they are still subject to copyright in the UK. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing up the deletion request

[edit]

The permission from Flightglobal has been given as a CC-by-sa license and has landed at OTRS as ticket 2016010410016319. I have moved all the concerned files to Category:Images from Flight archives licensed by Flightglobal, and will de-nominate and tag them accordingly in the coming days.

Notes:

  • Flightglobal has licensed all 581 (or 583, see [4]) images in the category as of December 17, 2015. This means further extractions from their web archive are not covered by this permission.
  • Attribution should be "The Flight magazine archive from Flightglobal" (keeping the link would be nice but is not required).
  • As has been discussed, many images fall under {{PD-old}} or similar status regardless of this licensing. I suggest that we still tag them with the OTRS ticket, just in case. Please do not add or remove files to Category:Images from Flight archives licensed by Flightglobal, regardless of the copyright status.
  • Flightglobal has kindly asked that we write their name correctly: it is 'Flightglobal' with lowercase g and in one word. I will try to correct this everywhere I can.

Thank you everyone for your patience, help, and support. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the fix I applied for the first file in the category. I will go through the rest of them in a semi-automatic way, progressively in the coming week. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done OK. I have edited all the files now.
  • removed every instance of CC-by, CC-by-sa, GFDL, CC-zero licensing and every instance of the 2009 mail from Flightglobal;
  • kept all instances of PD-xyz tags and explanations related to those;
  • added {{Cc-by-sa-4.0 |1= [https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/index.html The Flight magazine archive] from Flightglobal}} license to every file, even if it also has a PD-xyz tag;
  • added {{Flight archives from Flightglobal}} in permission field of every file;
  • replaced "Flight" with "unknown" when that was the only author given;
  • multiple small fixes (date should not be upload date, proper name of Flightglobal etc);
  • I took the liberty of adding 4 files to the lot: 1 2 3 4. These were already at Wikimedia Commons and correctly sourced, but not in the right category, when Flightglobal re-licensed the files. Also, 2 files did not belong (1 & 2) and I removed them from the category.
This took many tries and even though I checked each file page visually (!) I may have left or introduced mistakes. It would be good if each of you could take a look over their favorite files and let me know if there are problems.
Moving on, in the coming week I would like to send a thank-you note to Flightglobal, who did not have to do this. It would be nice to give examples of how valuable this collection is. I was thinking of showing them the Wikipedia Polish article about Winifred Spooner, Image File:Coanda 1910.png used in 72 Wikipedia articles in 23 languages, the curious and unique Platz glider, and maybe the Arabic Wikipedia articleon the Avro 652 (only two built!). Maybe you have other/better proposals? Not every media company realizes the cultural value of their assets. If we communicate our mission and successes well, then maybe Flightglobal or others will participate further and release more files.
Thank you — Ariadacapo (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


After a very long break from Wikimedia/Wikipedia I have just stumbled upon this thread. So much sterling work has been done over the past seven years to achieve this brilliant result w.r.t. the use of some 581 (?) Flight Global images from their pdf archive. A small band of editors has invested so much of their time to get this far. Thank you very much indeed. As someone who was involved in 2009 (as the recipient of the then editor's email granting permission in principle for the use of the images) I stand in awe of the commitment shown by all of you to reach this conclusion after more than seven years. Brilliant! TraceyR (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Images_from_FlightGlobal_Archive&oldid=204236882"