Commons:Deletion requests/File:XM2010 November 2010.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:XM2010_November_2010.jpg

There is absolutely no evidence for this image being a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee. Just because it appears on a US Army flickr account doesn't make a US soldier work. It is more likely that this image was taken by the weapon manufacturer. As consequence it must be proven that this is not the case. 80.187.106.255 18:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We have had this discussion before with another XM2010 picture. When PEO Soldier releases copyrighted pictures it marks them as copyrighted in the EXIF data. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I found evidence here Gut Monk (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead link but I found the article anyway. Keep. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is an image on the main page of this article with Project manager Col. Douglas Tamilio HOLDING this weapon without a visable suppressor (the image is cut off). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:XM2010_Douglas_Tamilio.jpg Though the suppressor/mock-up of a barrel attachment, may not be pictured with the Project manager, you can clearly see the similar and distinct features of the weapon discussed here and the one held by the project manager. Full length flat top picattiny rails, clear lack of full barrel length side picatinny rails, bolt action, visually similar reciever, and fully adjustable check plate and shoulder pads are apparent in both images. You can even see what I can only assume is a side-folding stock on both the picture in question and the image of Col. Douglas Tamilio, again, HOLDING, the gun. If we are required to have a press release image of the contract weapon, then yes this should be removed. Clearly this is a new model line produced either as a prototype or final production weapon. There are so many configurations for a picatinny based platform that an accurate baseline image, such as the current image, would suffice for general description of the weapon system in my opinion.

We do not discuss weapons details but licensing problems. --High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 Delete There is no evidence that this file is the work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee - as the nominator stated. An PD-US-Gov licence can only be used for images that were actually taken by US Gov employees. This is not possible without evidence. The EXIF data contains no information that could prove something. --High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The media has always labeled these images as PD-gov. They were put on a U.S. government photostream and all files on government sites are PD unless otherwise stated. The same series of photos was nominated for deletion and kept before: Commons:Deletion requests/File:XM2010 (Right back view).jpg. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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:XM2010_November_2010.jpg

There is no evidence that this file is the work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee - as the nominator stated. An PD-US-Gov licence can only be used for images that were actually taken by US Gov employees. This is not possible without evidence. The EXIF data contains no information that could prove that this file is in the public domain. High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Keep - All files on U.S. Military photostreams and websites are Public Domain unless otherwise stated. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they aren't. Why ever would you think that? Images created in the process of the work of US government employeess falls under this blanket, but the US gov is still permitted (with their author's permission) to host images from other sources (contractors and suppliers being the obvious ones) and these do not come under the blanket. Unless you have some other evidence of which their licensing is, you cannot assume that a resource is US gov PD, simply because it's on a .gov or a .mil site. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"These pictures are made available for news organizations and the general public. These pictures may not be used in any promotional materials; advertisements; or any medium that suggests approval or endorsement by PEO Soldier, the U.S. Army, or the U.S. Government." - flickr profile. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! That is not the US gov PD licence. Note also that an image under that licence might be accepted for WP, but it's not free enough for use at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No it is PD. The images on the Army website carry the following restrictions: "If imagery, either still or motion, is to be used for commercial advertisement, marketing or promotional activities or communications, follow the guidelines in this section. Additionally, the proposed layout with its accompanying copy must be approved by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs." The Seal of the FBI for example is public domain but we are not allowed to use it "in connection with any advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Keep - As far as I can see it's likely to be US gov work and PD for that reason. High Contrast for no apparent reason calls that my "opinion" in a quite unfriendly way, but it's not an opinion at all. 100% proof is a myth. If it's likely to be OK we should AGF and keep the image. That's why I kept the image. High Contrast concludes from the fact that I took a decision different from his vote that I have to learn things from him. I don't like such an arrogant behaviour. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is very sad that you identify faithful help as "arrogant behaviour". But this is your problem. Again, I am asking you again: which facts make you think this file falls under a PD-Army licence? You still do not act after hard and obvious facts, it is your subjective thinking of this being likely a US gov work. And no, I have absolutely no problem with different opinions but I refuse to accept decisions without valid explanations. And finally, you have to apologize for your anchorless accusations that you keep bringing against me incessantly. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"likely to be" doesn't cut it for copyright issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Please, please. This needs broader and more dispassionate treatment here. We have at least 120 images from the US Army's Program Executive Office -- PEO Soldier web site. Unfortunately the home site, although located at army.mil, has absolutely no copyright information, so the cautions above are entirely correct -- it is very possible, maybe 50/50, that any photos of the new equipment shown on the site came from a contractor and not an Army photographer. On the other hand, it would be unfortunate if we concluded that we had to delete all 120 (and more to come, I'm sure) as they are well photographed images of which the subject is a good example.

We need ideas, not bickering, people.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. It would be have those above-average images kept on Commons. But there is no evidence for these images to be released under PD-Army. As long this is not the case, we cannot hold them. The only solution I see is to contact the people on charge on for example Army.mil. Then we have to wait for a positive response. --High Contrast (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No evidence whatsoever? Gut monk has already shown you an example of the media labeling the image as public domain. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are talking of this link? This image is of different resolution. The only statement that can be considered as a source citation is "U.S. Army". Not "U.S. Army photo" or whatsoever. In addition we need evidence of a primary source: COM:L: The primary source should be provided. --High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems that one of the easy things to do is to email them and ask. It isn't rocket science, so I have emailed and done so. We will await a response.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask and one receives, their reply is

Yes, the images fall under the public domain as images taken by US
Federal government employees, taken or made during the course of an
employee's official duties. Please credit any photos used with PEO
Soldier/U.S. Army.


Thank you! Have a great day!

<name redacted>

<name redacted>
Public Affairs/Strategic Communications
PEO Soldier - Soldier Protective and Individual Equipment
NCI, Inc.

So to me, any photo from that site is  Keep  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in chasing this. However I'm not sure that message actually tells us anything new. We already knew that "during the course of official duties" means PD-US-Gov, no matter who hosts it. There's no additional indication that all PEO content falls under this. Is it true to think that there are no contractor images on the site?

It's also a problem to credit images, or at least a problem to promise that such images will be credited. This is a PD situation, not a CC-by licence. Although we would of course love to credit them, it's not a requirement of PD content that it be so credited in the future, and thus it's hard for us to enforce this on downstream uses of the content. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kept. Thanks to billinghursts for his great help. Final evidence has been brought now.