Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-chem

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

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:PD-chem

[edit]

The wording of this template is awful. Many chemical structural diagrams might be public domain (possibly even depending on the jurisdiction), but to say that they all are, simply because they "consist[s] entirely of information that is common property" is simply ridiculous. The street map of New York City "consists entirely of information that is common property", but that doesn't make it public domain (unless the artist releases it or unless it is ineligible for other reasons). --Physchim62 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I created this template after finding hundreds of of structural formula images labeled PD on this justification. I inquired at the Village Pump as to whether this was proper (I was skeptical), and found only affirmations. I created this template primarily as a wart to sort through the variety of PD images that use this justification, so that they are grouped together.--Pharos 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I guess you're not taking me up on the suggestion to improve the wording... oh well, a deletion request is easier. Rocket000 17:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I take it the deletion debate is about whethere or not chemical structural diagrams are PD-ineligible or not rather than about the actual template. /Lokal_Profil 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I simply found these images, and made a template with which to sort them. The only thing I would object to is if this template was deleted, and the images using this justification are kept.--Pharos 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I remember fielding a similar suggestion some time ago. I'm glad to see that someone created the template (will make it alot easier to look thorough Category: PD ineligible). And I agree if the images are keept then the template is usefull. Yes, a rephrasing might be necessary depending on the outcome of this discussion but such a rephrasing would also have to be followed by a deletion/relicensing of all the chemical structural diagrams that don't sattisfy the new conditions and which are currently tagged by either {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-chem}}. /Lokal_Profil 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You would think it would make it easier... :) Rocket000 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've mainly been looking at PD-ineligible-->PD-chem (which shouldn't be a problem since it's basically the same license for the same reasons). For other changes (for which I don't have a specific opinion) there is the possibility of using {{PD-chem|PD-whatever}} where the second license would be used as a backup license in case the PD-chem part gets challanged. For PD-ineligible-->PD-chem if it's a chemical structural diagram but we don't feel that it qualifies for PD-chem then should it really be tagged PD-ineligible to start with? /Lokal_Profil 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, honestly I don't know what those 3D structures are. I kinda think they are ineligible since no creativity goes into them (software renders it automatically), however, they aren't that simple. So those I've been just leaving Category:PD-ineligible Category:PD ineligible. Rocket000 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think a discussion about the 3D structures might be needed (to have a decision to point to later on if nothing else). It should probably be conducted separately from this discussion here though. To bad that the only effective way of discussing these thing seem to be through Deletion requests, nobody seems to care otherwise. /Lokal_Profil 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I know what you mean. I've seen way too many dead talk pages. The treat of deletion works though :) And you're right it should be separate and it's a much more complex issue if you take into account the license of the software used and how much user input there is. Rocket000 20:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think its time we thought about creating a central discussion venue for these sorts of issues. The only places we really have a the talk of COM:L and the VP - neither of these is good as the important stuff gets mixed in with the routine then (and so has a reduced visibility). I hate myself for saying it, but I think its time we had a Commons version of WP:RFC.--Nilfanion 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Difficult case – It’s not really a licensing template and could be misunderstood as "every structural diagram is PD-ineligible", however, it could be quite useful … Code·is·poetry 18:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's meant as a licensing template basically "PD-ineligible bacause...". As it is now every structural diagram is actually treated as PD-ineligible and thats the license that they are being slapped with whenever they crop up without a license etc. /Lokal_Profil 18:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are some chemical structures so simple that it would be hard to make an argument that there is any creative process needed to generate a depiction of them. But as someone who has created thousands of chemical structure images for Wikimedia, I can say with certainty that there are 2D chemical structure representations that require a non-negligible amount of skill, judgment, and even artistry to render them in a way that depicts the structure with greatest clarity. This is particularly true for those with complexity, stereochemistry, or unique features. Some representations will just be better than others, and the degree to which this is true will probably only be apparent to those familiar with chemical structure and chemical bonding. I don't know what degree of judgement is necessary to reach the level of copyrightability, but treating every depiction of a chemical compound as PD-ineligible (or an equivalent) does not seem appropriate. There is a use for a template such as this, if it is carefully worded, but it shouldn't be applied indiscriminately. Edgar181 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: We are NOT treating every depiction of a chemical compound as PD-ineligible. No one ever ever suggested that. Rocket000 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, is the statement above, "As it is now every structural diagram is actually treated as PD-ineligible," inaccurate? Rocket000, I know that you have been selecting only simple images to migrate to PD-chem, but is this what others are doing? Lokal Profil, can you clarify what you meant, too? Edgar181 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that from the talk page of {{PD-ineligible}} one gets the impression that PD ineligible should apply to all the chem diagrams. I'm not of that belief but I believe that most chem diagram images without a source or license probably got/get slapped with a PD ineligible tag. I'm generally in favour of other PD-tags (except {{PD}}) since they tend to have a less vague motivation for the license. This is why I introduced the option of a parameter with a "backup" license for the PD ineligible templates. So to summarise no I don't believe all chem diagrams are PD ineligible/PD chem but I believe that all/most get treated as such. Hopefully a clearly phrased version of this template can make it clear when the chem diagrams are PD ineligible and we can then go through those tagged with PD ineligible and retagg them as PD-chem or not PD ineligible based on that decision. /Lokal_Profil 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went through every single image in Category:PD chem. Only one or two were questionable to me (which I think were removed). The rest were all similar in design. So look at the first couple pages and you'll get an idea of what they're all like. If that's not PD, then we've been doing things very wrong for a very long time. Rocket000 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the original image was released into the public domain, use {{PD-self}} (or conceivably {{PD-USGov}}). PD-ineligible says "We say this is public domain, but the copyright holder might disagree and take you to court for breach of copyright". If its explicitly released to the public domain, say that: it makes zilch difference to the license we have it under, just with a clear justification not a debatable one.--Nilfanion 10:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's side-stepping the issue. How can you release rights if there's no rights to release? If we don't honor copyfraud from outsiders, why should we allow our uploaders to do so? PD-self asserts the material is eligible for copyright. So if it was, then we should delete this template and any chemical structures that aren't PD-self (or released under a free license), many many people think these are ineligible for copyright so they never legally released their rights (thinking they didn't have to) or they could have taken the images from another source without permission (again thinking they didn't need it). Since these are common property (IMO, I guess), most would have to be deleted as derivatives, anyway. Think of it this way, what if these weren't under a free license, could we keep them by adding this template? If so, then there is a use for it. We shouldn't ignore the situation just because a few images are PD regardless. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, we may have a ton of deletions to do. Rocket000 11:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its side-stepping the issue of "are the images PD-ineligible" but its not copyfraud - its asserting no copyright on the image whichever PD tag is used! There are two possibilities with self made images:
1. The image is ineligible for copyright. Then if it is tagged PD-chem its marked as copyright free and if its PD-self its marked as copyright free.
2. The image is eligible for copyright. Then if it is PD-self its marked as copyright free but if its PD-chem its got no valid license.
PD-self applies in both instances, but PD-chem only applies in the first instance, and its not clear if the first applies (why this page exists). The optional parameter in PD-ineligible isn't ideal at the moment: "{{PD-self}}" is not the terms of a free license (trivial to fix). By doing this we can at least sort out the many images that are PD-self. It will ease the deletion situation for sure (if we delete anything). Also, this template discourages the release of the legal rights. Why bother if its ineligible? It is preferable that we get an explicit release of license to an assertion of ineligibility.--Nilfanion 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PD-self does assert that the work was once copyrighted (before it was place in the PD). You must have rights in order to release them. It's illogical to say that you don't. According to {{PD-self}}: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain" You can't be a copyright holder if there is no copyright. Rocket000 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? The rights are not there on the image being hosted - so there is no copyfraud! Its not worth quibbling about whether there were any rights to release or not in the first place, its what exists. An explicit statement by the creator of the work (and the moral rights holder etc etc) says "This is public domain" is better than a statement that the work is not eligible for copyright for downstream users: they know the work is PD and don't have to worry about if PD-chem is a nonsense. Seeing as we are not really sure about PD-chem, but are sure about PD-self - use the latter when possible! I don't think we should give CC or GFDL works the same treatment but why prefer a debatable PD claim (this one) over a solid one?--Nilfanion 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, public domain is public domain, but we have different PD licenses for reason. Are suggesting that you don't have to be the copyright holder in order to use PD-self? If that's the case then I can release the rights to works I have no legal say over too. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. What if I made something that was ineligible for copyright, could I release it under any license I want? Releasing all rights is no different than releasing some or no rights at all. Either you legally can or you can't. Being generous doesn't give you extra legal power. Read the license tag again. It's not merely saying "the author says it's PD", it's saying the copyright holder releases it. There must be a copyright holder. And for there to be a copyright holder, there must be a copyright. Rocket000 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent)The problem is you are assuming that PD-chem is true. It may not be (the whole point of this). PD-self is a valid PD release either way, but the same cannot be said for PD-chem. I think the way to do this is to make a well-constructed template (your nitpicking suggests the way forward). For PD-chem (self made), irrespective of the validity of ineligibility, we want it to state:

  1. The work to be in the public domain.
  2. Its not eligible for copyright, so its PD
  3. If it is eligible, it is the copyright holder releases it to PD
  4. If neither of the above apply the copyright holder grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

All the above be stated on the page as opposed to the current "If the above is not true then this file is licensed under {{PD-self}}". The question is not can we convert PD-self to PD-chem if PD-chem is valid (trivial), but the converse if PD-chem is false. The important question: Is the creator saying "This image is not copyrightable" equivalent to saying that plus "and if it is copyrightable its I've made it PD"? I'm tempted to say yes to that (IANAL though). This will leave the files tagged with other licenses or from other sources of course, but constructing the PD-self form properly would handle all the files originally tagged with PD-self and be a good starting point. A parser function to make the template work would be the way forward (shouldn't be hard). I'm wondering if the best way is to force a second license on PD-Chem images, and if not given then delete: most of the non-self made ones in other words. Seeing as there is no real consensus on the validity of the concept, I think that's the way forward. This would also enable PD-chem to be used to tag all the more complex ones (as its freely licensed either way on the ineligibility). Are there any numbers on the total self vs non-self made files?--Nilfanion 02:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can see your reasoning such an approach would be targeting the wrong files. The PD-self chem diagram files don't actually have a problem they are either PD-ineligible or PD-self, how we then choose to tag them is another question. The problem are the PD-ineligible tagged chem diagrams and it's mainly for these that the template was created. A clearly worded template for when these diagrams can be considered PD-ineligible (or when Commons considers them to be) would make it easier to detect wrongfully tagged chem diagram images and would make it clearer for uploaders of non user created chem diagrams to know when these could be called free. /Lokal_Profil 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm avoiding that question is because I'm not sure just where the line is. A structural formula of molecular oxygen is PD-ineligible. A structural formula of an entire DNA strand would almost certainly be copyrighted. Its like the copyright on text: One word is hardly eligible for copyright, but 20 sentences are. Where is the threshold? Is there any consensus on when text changes from ineligible for copyright to copyrightable and if so, is there a quantitative length we can look at (for analogy purposes)? This is why I'm focusing on self-made stuff. With that (if my assumption above is true) we can ensure it is PD whether the threshold is reached or not. If we demand sourcing for PD-chem imagery and delete all non-self and non-free images we can stop caring about where the threshold is, and the advice for uploaders is simple: Create it yourself, don't copy it from somewhere else. I think it might be a good idea to go through the category slapping on {{No source since}} on everything without a source (as normal for Commons imagery).--Nilfanion 14:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I basically agree with Nilfanion, although I would go further. The question of whether an image is so lacking in creativity that is unprotected by copyright is completely unrelated to whether or not it depicts a chemical compound. For that reason alone, this template should be deleted, as it give a false impression of a complicated area of law. If we are to accept that certain chemical structure diagrams are so simple that they escape copyright protection, then this simplicity should be obvious to anyone who examines them. Otherwise, we should require that the author licences any possible copyright, as for other images on Commons. Physchim62 12:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

[edit]

This deletion request started off wrong (mainly because of the actions that triggered it's nomination). I believe this is important discussion and I don't want other issues to get in the way. I'm going to revert the PD-chem tagging of images that were not marked PD-ineligible to begin with (at least for those who challenge my actions—some actually thanked me). I don't want this to be about the use of PD-self verses PD-chem. It's true that Commons encourages users to use PD-self where they can. I don't think that's always the right thing to do, but I can live with it and doesn't really matter what I think anyway. My hope is that we can focus on the real issues here and they are: should we have a template like this?, how can it be improved?, and when should it be used? (That's excluding anything already marked PD-self, PD-user, or PD-author, of course.) Rocket000 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what could be criticized in your actions: you obviously acted in good faith in tagging the images and you promptly stopped when people noticed there was a problem. What we need is to discuss what is the best way to deal with these images, given that there is obviously disagreement between different contributors. This is one forum for such discussion, there is a parallel discussion at Commons talk:Licensing. Physchim62 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just tagged my own image as pd-chem. Previously, I had been tagging them as pd-ineligible. I thought it was a nice template to have, and a good one to have at WP itself. I for one believe that chemical diagrams are merely descriptions of facts - which aren't copyrightable in itself. How do you copyright the structure of benzene, for one? Reaction structures might be a little more nuanced, but I don't think they are copyright too. So, what should we do from here? If these structures are indeed copyright, I or any other chemist will probably be happy to redraw them and re-release them under pd-self, but I would prefer we just keep the pd-chem. --Rifleman 82 22:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While copyright does not apply to concepts, facts and ideas, it does protect, by default, concrete expressions of these concepts, facts, and ideas. A reasonably detailed diagram of a complex polymer or internal schematics of a chromosome would almost certainly be conferred copyright protection in many jurisdictions, just as diagrams of mechanical contraptions and schematics of tugboats are eligible for copyright.
I suggest the use of categorization to mark chemistry diagrams. Let us not toss content organization into already murky licensing waters. ~ Jafet 06:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. ChristianBier (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-chem&oldid=43078788"