Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kurokawa Hiromu 2019-01-29.jpg

< Commons:Deletion requests
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:Kurokawa Hiromu 2019-01-29.jpg

edit
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hayashi Makoto 2018-01-23.jpg.
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inada Nobuo 2018-07-27.jpg.
  •  Delete This image needs to be deleted because the license of this image is false. An uploader of this image (User:Noukei314) says ...
  1. This image came from kensatsu.go.jp.
  2. This image was available under the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use Ver.2.0.
  3. The Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use Ver.2.0 and CC-BY 4.0 are compatible.
But the Public Prosecutors Office of Japan (administrator of kensatsu.go.jp) says "This website contents was available under the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use Ver.1.0". The Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use Ver.1.0 and CC-BY 4.0 are not compatible. --Nnkrkrhhdi (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 虚偽のライセンスのため、この画像は削除が必要です。この画像をアップロードした人（User:Noukei314）は、以下のような主張をしています。
  1. この画像は、検察庁のウェブサイト「kensatsu.go.jp」から持ってきた。
  2. この画像は、「政府標準利用規約」第2.0版の下で公開された。
  3. 「政府標準利用規約」第2.0版はCC-BY 4.0と互換性がある。
しかし、検察庁（「kensatsu.go.jp」の管理者)は、この「kensatsu.go.jp」のコンテンツは「政府標準利用規約（第1.0版）に準拠しています」と述べています。「政府標準利用規約」第1.0版はCC-BY 4.0と互換性がありません。--Nnkrkrhhdi (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


ライセンスを間違えて記載してしまい失礼しました。User:Nnkrkrhhdiさんご指摘のとおり、当該画像がアップされている検査庁のホームページは政府標準利用規約第1.0版に準拠しておりました。そこで一点ご教示いただきたいのですが、以下のテンプレートを張り付けることで政府標準利用規約第1.0版に準拠していることを明記しても、削除を取りやめることにはできないのでしょうか。
This file is licensed under the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Version 1.0).
Information made available on the government websites may be freely used, copied, publicly transmitted, translated or otherwise modified on condition that the user complies with provisions (e.g. source citation, no infringement of third party rights, etc.). Commercial use of Content is also permitted. Use of the Content constitutes agreement by the user with these terms of use for using the Content described herein.


Note: Check if it can be used with {{GJSTU2}}.
Some people say that Wikimedia Commons should not accept files under this license because the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Ver.1.0) is not a "free license" with its "Prohibited use" (below). Others think they are a kind of non-copyright restrictions.

Prohibited use
a. The Content must not be used in the following ways:
(a) Usage that violates laws and ordinances, regulations, or public policy *
(b) Usage that represents a threat to the safety of the state and/or its citizens
*Usage violating public policy means criminal use, use that is contrary to moral principles (marital order, sexual morality), use that severely restricts personal freedom, profiteering or unfair dealings etc.

Noukei314 (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment This image licensed under the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use Ver.1.0. But the Wikimedia Commons cannot accept this image. The Wikimedia Commons can accept contents that are available under the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use Ver.2.0. --Nnkrkrhhdi (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep 「法令、条例又は公序良俗に反する利用」（Usage that violates laws and ordinances, regulations, or public policy）「国家・国民の安全に脅威を与える利用」（Usage that represents a threat to the safety of the state and/or its citizens）が禁止（Prohibited use）されているだけで商用利用は可能なので（Commercial use is permitted.）。また、先行議論でも必ずしも受け入れられないコンテンツとしての合意は得られていない(Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GJSTU1)。ただし、CC-4.0との互換性がないのでライセンス変更は必要。--Monaneko (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use version 1.0 (“GJSTU1” hereafter) can be considered as a free license, even if it is incompatible with CC licenses; files that bear the GJSTU1 license are not subject to deletion.
    • In earlier discussion on this subject, some users insisted that the GJSTU1 license does not comply with the licensing policy for the reason that the license does not allow “usage that violates laws and ordinances, regulations or public policies” and/or “usage that represents a threat to the safety of the state and/or its citizens,” despite the fact that these prohibitions fall on non-copyright restrictions, which are in general allowed on Commons. Eventually their claim was disapproved and the license tag for the GJSTU1 remains kept to date.
    • In 先行議論 2 (second-earliest discussion at the Japanese Village Pump), there has never been a community consensus that the GJSTU1 files fail a free license status and should be deleted. Some users misinterpreted the discussion, whether intensionally or not, and keep insisting that the GJSTU1 should be obsoleted. But such a claim lacks grounds as stated above.
    • As the licensing policy on Japanese Wikipedia and that on Commons are not identical, consensus on Wkipedia’s policy does not necessarily affect consensus on Commons’ policy, thus insufficient as a reason for deletion. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete GJSTU1 clearly states that use is prohibited if there is a threat to the safety of Japan or the public. Since the copyright holder restricts the purpose of use, it cannot be clearly defined as free.--Araisyohei (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is considered that what is prohibited to use for items that may harm the safety of Japan is in violation of the Commons policy "Permits free reuse for any purpose, including commercial."--Araisyohei (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The licensing question here centers around if these restrictions form part of the copyright license, or if they are simply a restatement of another section of law (a non-copyright restriction). In my opinion, they are quite clearly part of the license. They are part of section 1 just like the attribution requirement. Furthermore, 1. (7)(a) says The Terms of Use does not limit those types of uses for which, under Copyright Act of Japan, license from the right holders are not required, which would imply that the 1.(3) restrictions are based in copyright only. That makes them conditions of the license, and the license is non-free for the same reason as the JSON license. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the first paragraph of 「政府標準利用規約（第1.0版）」の解説 ("Clarification of the GJSTU1"), published in Japanese by the Cabinet Secretariat of Japan, it is said: 著作権以外の具体的かつ合理的な根拠に基づき二次利用を制限する場合を除き、制約なく二次利用を認める ("the GJSTU1 allows unrestricted secondary uses, excluding limitations based on non-copyright, concrete and reasonable grounds"), meaning the said prohibited use is a non-copyright restriction. As for 1. 7) a, the clarification states: アでは、著作権法の権利制限規定（第30条～第47条の9）に当たる行為について、この利用ルールが制限するものではないことを説明している ("in this section, it is explained that usage that falls on The Subsection 5 (Limitations of Copyright) of the Copyright Act is not restricted by the GJSTU1 license"), meaning that in certain circumstances (private/educational uses, quotations etc.) copyright restrictions will be lifted and the GJSTU1 doesn’t limit such uses either. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AntiCompositeNumber How is this license different from the JSON license? And what is the same? Also, is there a policy that JSON-licensed files are deleted?--Araisyohei (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Can someone please translate the following from http://www.kensatsu.go.jp/about/? If it's saying that the site is also licensed under the CC-BY 4.0, then we don't even need to discuss the status of the GJSTU 1.0. "本利用ルールは，クリエイティブ・コモンズ・ライセンスの表示4.0国際（https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.ja）（※外部サイトにリンクします。このリンク先は，平成２８年２月３日現在のものです。）に規定される著作権利用許諾条件。以下「CC BY」といいます。）と互換性があり，本利用ルールが適用されるコンテンツは，CC BYに従うことでも利用できます。" -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep On the merits, I consider the GJSTU to contain a Commons:Non-copyright restriction, similar to how photos of identifiable people cannot be used in an advertisement without their consent even if freely licensed from a copyright perspective. "Harm the safety of Japan" sounds like generic government legalese; if the government of Japan were to go after someone for allegedly violating that provision, it wouldn't be under copyright law, but under some national security law or similar which we don't care about. In terms of process, we shouldn't be independently nominating individual images for deletion because that leads to fragmentation and inconsistent outcomes. Renominate Template:GJSTU1 for deletion and if you succeed, everything under it which is not available under a different license will go along with it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is they could go after someone outside Japan for copyright infringement who they couldn't touch with Japanese law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How plausible do you think that is, when a government has relicensed most of its content under the GJSTU 2.0, that it would seek to enforce a prior version of the license on old content based on a technicality? I think this is far less likely than for a 120-year-old work to still be copyrighted, and yet the community allows that; COM:PCP is not a suicide pact. Again, I think there is a fundamental difference in licenses from individuals and governments. For individuals, a license statement is performative, and carries the full weight of a legal declaration. For governments, a license statement is often merely descriptive, a restatement of what is contained in actual laws. So I think the GJSTU 2.0 is merely a restatement of what the government meant all along, and there is no actual legal change from 1.0 to 2.0. Even with the 2.0 version the bit about harming the safety of Japan is probably still buried in some obscure Japanese law. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as seems to be a non-copyright restriction. Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To closing admin: it is much appreciated if you could share your opinion whether the GJSTU1 license is free enough for Commons or not, to avoid unnecessary future arguments like this. Thanks in advance. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep --Tibet Nation (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  KeepCOM:L already stated that Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, in which "free content" is already defined at [2]. I rather treat such restrictions as non-copyright restrictions.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The website's terms of use say 本利用ルールが適用されるコンテンツは，CC BYに従うことでも利用できます ("[you] can also use the content in accordance with CC-BY"). Logically, there would be no point in allowing this if the GJSTU restrictions would still apply in that case. They are clearly trying to say, in their clumsy way, that you can use the content under CC-BY as an alternative to GJSTU. (This is what happens when you let prosecutors do IP lawyers' work!) Sekicho (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per User:AntiCompositeNumber and COM:PCP. Prohibited use includes "usage that violates public policy" where "public policy" has been defined as "moral principles (marital order, sexual morality)" which are completely vague. What AntiCompositeNumber reminded about the JSON License is of particular interest. "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" which is part of the JSON license is completely vague. Using an analogy, I believe GJSTU1 is not free enough either for Commons. {{GJSTU1}} should be nominated for deletion and all files using it should be gone. But I don't do this at the moment to avoid making procedural problems. --4nn1l2 (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kurokawa_Hiromu_2019-01-29.jpg&oldid=544209035"