Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-OakRidge

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.

Template:PD-OakRidge

Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Clarice_Phelps.jpg, there is no confidence that 2012110610012871 is sufficient to ensure that this template can be used in a generic way for photographs published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The 57 files that transclude this template will require individual verification to be certain that a correct release is available. Fæ (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most usage is for File:Richard Smalley.jpg, with 125 cross-wiki uses. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has already been discussed at length in the linked DR, UT-Battelle retains copyright over their work, but is forbidden from exercising that copyright unless they first seek permission from the DOE. That makes this at the very best a revocable free license, which is not a free license in any meaningful sense. It is probably more properly a revokable permission for use, which ultimately amount to fair use for us and any third parties who reuse the content. Anyone who reuses any of this content is exposed to litigation if at any point in the future UT-Battelle is granted permission to exercise their copyright. Any statement from DOE that these are public domain or "effectively public domain" is meaningless, as they don't own the copyright, and cannot therefore re-license the content. Per the 2019 OTRS ticket, UT-Battelle themselves can't even freely re-license the content if they wanted to, because doing so would be a forbidden exercise of their copyright.

It is frankly a stupidly convoluted contractual arrangement that they have, and it stinks that our lot is to try to sort it out. But at the end of the day the content is either irrevocably free in perpetuity or it isn't, and these aren't. GMG ^talk 13:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need another DR, that tags the entire list above? A DR on the template feels a bit opaque. --Fæ (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: I suppose we could just add the notice to all the file pages, or mass DR them and redirect that DR to here instead. GMG ^talk 21:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latter sounds good to me. Care to do the honours? Probably better a sysop handles it. --Fæ (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done GMG ^talk 21:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have left a note to this DR at Talk:Clarice_Phelps#Image_deletion.

For Wikipedians who rarely take part in Commons DRs, please keep in mind that copyright based rationales to keep or delete affected files, carry far more weight with a closing administrator than the fact that the images are widely used and have very high educational value. --Fæ (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nos 16 to 19 are wartime photos by Ed Westcott, the official Manhattan Project photographer working for the US Army, and as such are in the public domain. I have struck them from the list, and updated their descriptions accordingly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing these. Though this DR is raised on the template, there may be other valid reasons why other affected images can be kept without relying on the OTRS ticket. --Fæ (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that File:Actinium.jpg is perhaps the only publicly available image of chemical element actinium. Thus its continued availability is very important to the encyclopedia. Jni (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jni: but there is also File:Actinium sample (31481701837).png which is on the enwiki article, and has a much greater resolution. Wumbolo (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That one is a new upload. It very likely depicts same v-vial as the image listed here and is of course courtesy of ORNL. If we accept the amateur lawyer legal theory that DOE or ORNL cannot competently license their images under a free license, then this one is perhaps in danger zone as well. Jni (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is just silly copyright paranoia. The license says: Unless otherwise noted, they have been placed in the public domain, although we request the following credit line be used when documents or figures are used elsewhere: “Courtesy of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy.” If US government says some of their laboratory pictures are in public domain, then we can trust that statement. It is meaningless whether Dept. of Energy owns the copyright outright or has a contractual veto power over the agency owning copyright. Jni (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is meaningless whether Dept. of Energy owns the copyright As it turns out, when giving something away, it's actually extremely important whether that thing actually belongs to you. If the DOE does not own the copyright (and they don't), then any statement on their website releasing it freely is effectively Commons:License laundering. GMG ^talk 13:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we volunteers must play-act copyright lawyer to fix U.S. government laundering licenses of their own contractors. Or maybe not. Jni (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The legal department of Oak Ridge has been advised of this matter and have had plenty of time to adjust their website, if they felt it was necessary. They have not done so. As they are the responsible and qualified legal professionals, we should not try to be "holier than the Pope". Andrew (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just adding a link to Ticket:2019042910007076 which is relevant and ongoing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to loop Jacob in, it looks like releasing content under CCBYSA would be a prohibited exercise of their copyright, and they would have to seek permission from DOE. However, it might be possible for them to seek permission for DOE in writing, specifically in cases where they would like to release content under CCBYSA. Essentially only if they want to give it away, and not assert their copyright for their own commercial use or for litigation against reusers. It may be helpful if we could find the correct contact with DOE and get them involved in the discussion. GMG ^talk 02:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Per JNI. OTRS volunteers are not copyright attorneys. I feel this episode is an abuse of OTRS permissions and I’m embarrassed that OTRS members, purportedly on behalf of Wikimedia, are challenging publishers about their copyrights in this way. If they say we can use it, then we can use it. A license to reuse and allow others to reuse, aka “effectively public domain”, is compatible with our license. Levivich (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to ping @Ruthven: or @Krd: who are both OTRS admins, to verify whether any permissions have been abused in this situation. GMG ^talk 00:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; my choice of words were intemperate. I don’t mean that you (or any OTRS volunteer) broke any OTRS rule. I mean this is not how the OTRS role should be used. OTRS volunteers are not copyright lawyers and shouldn’t be overruling the copyright statements of reputable publishers like the US DOE. Levivich (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather common sense that you cannot give away something that does not belong to you. The issue of US Federal Government contractors is nothing new. GMG ^talk 13:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can think it’s common sense, but you’d be wrong. You are completely ignoring licensing, especially irrevocable licensing. One can re-license what one has a license to re-license, even if one does not own the copyright. An irrevocable license to re-license for any purpose is, as whomever you’ve been emailing has already told you, “effectively public domain”, and compatible with our license. Copyright licensing is more popular in the real world than copyright transfers. The arrangement betweeen the govt and its contractor is very standard. That you personally don’t believe it is no reason to delete these files. Being an OTRS volunteer doesn’t make you a copyright lawyer or expert. Levivich (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per COM:PCP. Enough reasonable doubt about the freeness of Oak Ridge Labs photos has been raised, and the Template Talk page for PD-USGov-DOE even mentions a non-free lab having the same copyright terms as Oak Ridge Lab. I feel for the OTRS volunteers trying to sort this whole mess out. Abzeronow (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos - of course, for this nomination; yet, in view of the matter's obvious importance, Why this deletion request's so utterly modest of scope? The number of files to which this discussion pertains could be broadened exponentially.
"With 27,000 pictures, the ETVC [DoE's Energy Technology Visuals Collection] is an excellent resource for DOE program personnel preparing publications, presentations, and briefings. We also serve DOE contractors, other Federal agencies, state and local agencies, universities, the media and the public. In addition, we maintain the files of photographs taken by the DOE photography department."-- [U.S. Department of Energy's] Photography [office]
And from among these thousands of US government media, some untold number have been uploaded to Commons. Perhaps one rationale for a piecemeal approach would be that the DoE's constituent labs' contracts with the DoE might vary one from the other, in which case it might make sense to tackle one labs' images separately from those of its siblings. Which, so to do, if we were to start with those of Oak Ridge, would entail searching through Commons for markers such as "Oak Ridge" or "ORNL" to locate the files on Commons that are sourced to this lab. To start, one such subgrouping therefrom, for example, will be this labs' flickr stream; by circumstance, users seemingly not unoften have affixed Category:Files from Department of Energy Oak Ridge Flickr stream to such images--but perhaps we could add some other search term to complete the list of this lab's flickr-sourced an be able to complete this particular sub-list.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eg

File:ORNL Spallation Neutron Source (8003097526).jpg

File:Julie Ezold in ORNL Review (cropped).jpg

File:Dawn Shaughnessy Women @ Energy.jpg

---

For the record, I protest that (diff) willy nilly {{PD-OakRidge}} was affixed to File:April2017ClaricePhelps.jpg immediately prior this Deletion request. I (diff) reversed it with edit summary "looks like targeting this subject, please start with some other file amongst the scores and scores and scores of files from ORNL on Commons." Believing this unfair play, I've (diff) deleted it from this discussion.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have identified additional files that are covered under the same rationale, then you may add them to this discussion or begin a new one. You may not unilaterally decide that a file you have uploaded may not be nominated for deletion, especially when it says on the file itself Copyright holder ORNL and Carlos Jones. GMG ^talk 20:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per non-profit LLC Ut-Battelle's contract w DoE (... "(c) Copyright (General). (1) The Contractor agrees not to mark, register, or otherwise assert copyright in any data in a published or unpublished work, other than as set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this clause" &tc), it has proclaimed these images effectively as in the public domain.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note (see text in LINK) - Exceptions in (d) and (e) refer not to non-technical photographs but, respectively, to "scientific and technical articles" and to "technical data and computer software."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - Yes, per this (pg 39 in The State of Copyright: The complex relationships of cultural creation in a globalized world, by Debora Halbert (Routledge, 2017)), various contractors have differing terms within their contracts with the US federal government but, inasmuch as the LLC running Oak Ridge's contract is available online, we know that in its case, all non-technical photos are legitimately released to the public domain, as the DoE has indeed indicated w rgd to its flickr stream, etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and replace template. The corporate author (UT-Battelle) has clearly released the images into the public domain. Even if there was some problem with their contract with DOE—and it's not clear that's actually the case—it would need to be worked out on their end. That being said, Template:PD-OakRidge is the incorrect template for this use case since the authors are not in fact federal employees. The template needs to be changed to something based on Template:PD-author; I suggest the following. Antony-22 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image comes from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a national laboratory privately operated under contract from the United States Department of Energy by UT-Battelle. This work has been released into the public domain by its author, UT-Battelle. This applies worldwide.
In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
UT-Battelle grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse

ORNL requests the text "Courtesy of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy" be used when crediting images to it. The full license is below:

Documents provided from the web server were sponsored by the U.S. Government under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC, which manages the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. Unless otherwise noted, they have been placed in the public domain, although we request the following credit line be used when documents or figures are used elsewhere: "Courtesy of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy".

File:Oak Ridge National Laboratory logo.svg

Updating the template with the full license language makes sense to me. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of the rest, File:April2017ClaricePhelps.jpg should be kept, as the DOE as marked it as a U.S. gov't work on Flickr. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least for that image, we can definitively say it is licensed under this license, which is compatible. Levivich (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update the template per the suggestion above. --ShockD (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: most per discussion, kept a few which are using other licenses inbetween. --Ju Ta 13:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-OakRidge

Template:PD-OakRidge

Navigation menu

Search