Commons:Deletion requests/File:HeavensGateRecruitmentMeetingFlyer.jpg

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:HeavensGateRecruitmentMeetingFlyer.jpg

I don't think a random commons contributor would have the authority to distribute a flyer written by the members of Heaven's Gate as CC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever to delete the flyer.

(1) The flyer is an important historic artifact. The original (which I still have) really belongs in a museum or a research library rare book room.

(2) Please look at the image carefully. The flyer does not have a copy write symbol. So it is not subject to copy write and there are no legal restrictions regarding the reproduction of the image.

(3) The image was for a public meeting and relates to the well known news story of the Heaven's Gate cult mass suicide. There are no restrictions on the fair use of such material in reporting a news story.

(4) All of the people in the Heaven's Gate cult are dead. So PARAKANYAA's suggestion is impossible.

Finally I am not "a random commons contributor." You have no idea as to my scholarly credentials. The person suggesting the deletion of the image clearly does not understand American laws concerning the use of such materials.

Wsjacobs Wsjacobs (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wsjacobs Copying my comment from enwiki,

1) I don't disagree, but that doesn't go before copyright law.

2) It would have been public domain if it had lacked a symbol in the 80s or before but due to a reformation in copyright law a symbol was not needed when you said this is from (1993). Is it from before that? You uploaded it as "own work", which it is not.

3) You didn't upload it as fair use. Fair use items must be uploaded locally to wikis and not on commons, and need a strict rationale to justify their use, which this fails

4) Sometimes you can't get permission for things.

I personally disagree with the existence of copyright law. Wikipedia & commons have to abide it however. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Commons doesn't host fair use, so if you're going to argue that, then its going to be deleted. Something being public doesn't necessarily equate to being public domain, and since its (apparently) made in 1993, it should be automatically copyrighted no matter if there's no copyright symbol on it. It really doesn't matter here if its "an important historic artifact" or if "Heaven's Gate cult are dead" then. I read the "random commons contributor" as you not having any relation to the group themselves to claim the "own work" as cc-by-sa-4.0. reppop^talk 02:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete 1993 is a little too late for the 'no notice' claim. Since March 1, 1989, copyright exists from the moment any work is created. You would need permission from the copyright holder. It's also quite a bit for a PD-text claim either. Only the copyright holder can grant valid CC licenses to their work. PascalHD (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Simultaneously arguing "it's fair use" and "it isn't actually copyrighted" doesn't really work as those are incompatible arguements. Also Commons does not allow fair use, so that's a dead-end argument. Commons:But it's my own work! and Commons:Threshold of originality may be of some use here. This certainly does not meet the threshold of originality as an image alone but there is substantial textual content to it as well, which can always be copyrighted, so I'm not sure if that applies or not. Just Step Sideways (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The text is certainly sufficient for copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  It might well be a valid part of an en-wiki article (and could probably be uploaded to en-wiki as non-free content, but if it is not either in the public domain or free licensed, then it doesn't belong on Commons.

  If it was produced in the U.S. in 1994, it is certainly not in the public domain, because copyright has been the default ever since 1 March 1989. That copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author, so assuming the author died in the mass suicide, that would mean it is copyrighted until 1 January 2080. We apparently have no idea who the heirs may be, so there is no one to grant a license.

  Under Commons' precautionary principle, Commons doesn't host images on the basis that the copyright holder won't sue or wouldn't mind. We require explicit licensing, including consent for commercial use and derivative works.

  Plus, the claim of "own work" and of a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license is clearly just plain false. - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: Just going to add that before trying to upload this locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, it's important to understand that English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is intentionally intended to be much more restrictive than fair use and trying to argue that non-free content is "historic" can be a rather difficult thing to do. In addition, English Wikipedia tends to frown upon using images (free or non-free) that are nothing more than text for the reasons given in en:MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. For this reason, en:WP:FREER often becomes a hrudle that is too high to overcome when dealing with non-free images of essentially nothing more than text. So, simply claiming something is "fair use" and "historic" doesn't necessarily mean it will be considered OK to use, even if it's uploaded as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete. The text needs a free license to remain on Commons. Glrx (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete per above comments. Also, do not upload locally on enwiki as there is higher chances that it fails w:en:WP:Non-free content as per Marchjuly above. A file showing something historic has a better chance of being hosted on enwiki if it is an image of an event that is covered by an article, not a mere text artifact. Definitely, as per consensus that is linked at this guideline page at enwiki, enwiki follows U.S. copyright law, but its fair use policy is far stricter than the standards set by U.S. jurisprudences. Being something historic is not enough. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment. What about the posting of this image being a fair use exception to copyright concerns?
  Clearly the image is being posted solely for informational purposes. It is a historic document. Removing the image from the article deprives the public of an important piece of information, namely that it is an example of the sort of recruitment activities in which the Heaven's Gate cult engaged. Wikipedia is a non-profit. No one is seeking to profit from posting the image.
  Also please note that simply reporting the text of the document is insufficient to inform readers of what the Heaven's Gate material is like. The multiple different fonts and formatting are themselves important parts of the flyer message.
  The arguments being made against posting the image would deprive Wikipedia and the public of an important piece of historic information and, if followed more broadly, would seriously negatively impact the study and writing of history. I cannot believe that that was the intent of the copyright law revisions.
  Wsjacobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsjacobs (talk • contribs) 02:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Wsjacobs: Not only are you splitting this discussion between here and Commons:Village_pump/Copyright, but you are ignoring the answers you get there and posting the same thing here. I will repost here what I said to your nearly identical post there, to which I responded over an hour before you said nearly the same thing here. "Yes, the document is valuable. Yes, it is doubtless legal to reprint it on a "fair use" basis in a discussion of the Heaven's Gate. No, Commons does not accept images on a fair use basis. This is a policy matter about this site, not a legal matter. Any given site has a scope; this is outside of ours. As for the policies of the English-language Wikipedia, Commons is really not the place to discuss them." - Jmabel ! talk 02:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is by no means the first time they've been told that Commons doesn't do fair use, but they keep bringing it up anyway, and they keep bringing up the law when we are talking about Commons policy and not the law. Just Step Sideways (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete Clearly copyrighted and I'd argue fair use wouldn't apply even if we allowed for it. Which we don't. But I don't think this an instance that would allow for fair use anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Fandom accepts fair use documents: https://religion.fandom.com/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(cult) --RAN (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair use largely depends on "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." So I'm not really sure the whole page of a flyer would qualify. Especially if the flyer is only the one page to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination, speedily deleted as an obvious copyright violation, acknowledged by the uploader. fair use is not allowed on Commons. I have however uploaded a cropped version including just the main title, which IMO is simple enough and ineligible for copyright. --Bedivere (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)