Commons:Deletion requests/File:IV light soaking.png

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:IV light soaking.png

There is no evidence on this page that the file is freely licenced, and the presence of a paywall makes it even less plausible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a paywall is no indicator; I can give you numerous xamples of entire PD journal volumes that are behind paywalls. Does this image not fail the threshold of originality? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. The individual elements of the image are fairly simple (and I am not sure if the data lines would be considered "creative") but the whole might push up against "selection and arrangement" copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know of nowhere where you're allowed to, in a commercial work, take a figure from a paper and re-use it as is without explicit agreement from the copyright holder. Headbomb (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing and Jo-Jo Eumerus: The actual data used to create the graph itself might not be eligible for copyirght, but the way the data is represented in a particular way as a graph may be. So, it might be possible for someone to recreate the graph in a different way using the same data per COM:CB#Scientific or technical diagrams (see also COM:CB#cite_note-5 and COM:CB#cite_note-vpc201305-6). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: It could depend upon the type and origin of the data used and the complexity of the graph itself. If the data is within the PD domain (for example, data accumulated and released by the US government and just represented visually in some simple/not very creative manner, then it might not be in and of itself eligible for copyirght protection regardless of whether it's part of a larger copyright eligble work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all maybes and possiblies. Unless there's proof positive that this work is in the public domain, it's should be treated as if it's not. Headbomb (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that statement in principle; however, whether something is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection for Commons is often determined through consensus based upon maybes and possibilities without their being a specific court case (i.e. something proof positive) dealing with the particular image. Files of questionable copyright status are often deleted per COM:PCP, but that usually reflects a consensus of the Commons community. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]