Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Missvain

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Files uploaded by Missvain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not works by Terri Sewell, Bradley Byrne, Martha Roby et al. Any evidence they are works of an employee of the U.S. Congress.

Tobe continued...

Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY KEEP All of these photographs were published by Members of the United States Congress and published on their website and/or social media and/or photo publishing websites as part of their official duty. Therefore they are public domain. This is old hat, and I'm surprised they were nominated, but I understand that you might not be familiar with United States public domain licensing. I used to work for the feds, so perhaps I have a bit more insight than most Commonists. The licensing is as follows: "This United States Congress image is in the public domain. This may be because it was taken by an employee of the Congress as part of that person’s official duties, or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." --Missvain (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Patrick Rogel please familiarize yourself with regarding public domain and social media in the US Federal Government. Here is one source: "Some Representatives or Senators might choose not to formally archive their social media posts, since they are already in the public domain." and "Since Member tweets, Facebook posts, and other social media items are in the public domain on the social media services’ platforms, interested parties might be able to use those to help understand public policy development." Source: "Social Media Adoption by Members of Congress: Trends and Congressional Considerations" by Jacob R. Straus, Specialist on the Congress, 2018, p 13. – published by the Congress. Link: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45337.pdf -- Missvain (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly know that policies. Nevertheless I don't know what make you think that e.g. https://www.instagram.com/repterriasewell/ is an "official website of a member of Congress" and besides I can see at least 6 copyrighted images in this account's first page. And as you pointed out yourself, "Government content on any [social media] site is generally public domain" but not always, as you can see by yourself. You should know too that Facebook, Instagram, Twitter images are not free, like All Rights Reserved Flickr images. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Missvain: Add. I'm not sure it's "old hat" since there has been a similar discussion four months ago and it should show you that attribution questions are less simpler than you think. Don't be surprised that a mass upload with such flaws leads to a mass deletion request. Please find below the typical problems about your files and above the results of my research for each file (research you should have performed yourself BEFORE mass upload):
  • "FBMD" denotes a Facebook or Instagram image which are speedy deleted here per COM:CSD#F1 with the uploader asked to go through OTRS;
  • Lack of authors and copyright holders in EXIF: except for File:Frederick D. Reese speaking - 2016 02.jpg found out by @Ytoyoda: and perhaps a few other ones which credits U.S House Office of Photography we do no nothing about the photographer's names and their job (you credited photographers as being Terri Sewell, Bradley Byrne, Martha Roby et al which is obviously false since these people are pictured in the images);
  • Authority of the (unknown) photographers: I wonder if the so-called "staff" from Gongres(woman) are in their official duty to follow her outside Washington at some external events (such as at SXSW here or there) or in another country (here).
So I recommend you to double check each files and explain why, in your opinion, they fall under {{PD-USGov-Congress}}. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Rogel. Facebook, Instagram, Flickr and Twitter are unable to claim copyright on any federally published works, except previously copyrighted works. For example, if Ms. Roby posts a copyrighted image of Martin Luther King, Jr. on her Facebook page, it is copyrighted through and through. If Ms. Roby posts an original photograph of herself with Taylor Swift that she/employee/government volunteer (yes, they do exist) took, it is public domain. You will have to request OTRS for more photographs on Commons if this is not the case - including those of mine, in which my father took the photograph of me and I posted it online (I have about 20 of those on Commons, so I guess you better nominate those for deletion, too). This is stated in the documentation I linked to. Also, having worked for the government and on the Hill (Capitol Hill), staffers do accompany lawmakers on trips nationally and internationally, for example, at SXSW. It wouldn't matter anyway - if someone takes that photograph of Ms. Roby's phone, she publishes it, it becomes public domain. Regarding the "generally" comment – that is for the Martin Luther kind example I just used. That's clearly copyrighted. However, original works published by government employees are not. I know you won't change your mind, but, I've lectured on this – it was part of my work at the federal government when I was Wikipedian in Residence at the Library of Congress. It's legitimate and these works are public domain. Then again, I outlined my case with relevant documentation, including below, and I expect reviewers to take that into consideration. Missvain (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And more information "Government content on any [social media] site is generally public domain and therefore can not become the intellectual property of an individual or be protected by a site provider." p 12 "Corporation for National and Community Service" (nationalservice.gov) - https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/11_0615_social_media_policy.pdf Missvain (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ytoyoda: Hmm. Specific explainations are already given above just before each file... You should better add what you think of each file at the same place and, especially, explain here what make you think that "Even photographs taken by third parties are most likely taken by staffers". --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Patrick Rogel: I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but I see you arguing that "FBMD" in the metadata as a deltion for speedy delete, which is a really weird point to make when talking about images downloaded from professional Instagram accounts of members of Congress. If they are {{PD-USGov}} photos, then it's irrelevant whether what platform they're downloaded from. I don't think we have issues with White House photos downloaded from the White House or official POTUS Instagram accounts, do we? Also, I wonder how specific you actually are when I see files like File:Bradley Byrne view at Trump Inauguration 2017.jpg (caption: “The view from [Bradley Byrne’s] seat for today's #Inauguration Ceremony. A historic and patriotic day!”) or File:Frederick D. Reese speaking - 2016 02.jpg (metadata credit: “U.S House Office of Photography” - at that point, does it matter which specific photographer it was?) or File:Alfre Woodard and Terri Sewell - 2019 01.jpg (you can see the phone screen reflected on Terri Sewell’s glasses in a way that strongly suggests she, not Alfre Woodward, whose one arm is obscured and the other is farther from the camera than Sewell’s).

Ytoyoda (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to reviewers – Just laying things out a little more clearly here so you can see resources that support my efforts. I also have professional experience with this, during my tenure as Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Library of Congress and as Smithosnian Wikipedian-in-Residence in which I designed programs focused around this and related copyleft subjects, including releasing thousands of images into the public domain that were under Smithsonian "copyright" until we freed them upon realizing they were indeed, public domain or no known copyright. Also, please note, while each federal department has their own inside policies regarding how employees interact with the public (i.e. FBI procedures are different than Library of Congress for obvious reasons around sensitivity concerns), it is standard across the board for original government works to be public domain once posted or shared. Thank you again for your consideration.
  • "Government content on any [social media] site is generally public domain and therefore can not become the intellectual property of an individual or be protected by a site provider." p 12 "Corporation for National and Community Service", link. Please note, "generally" refers to common sense: If the government employee posts the official Michael Jackson video for "Thriller" on social media, it falls under "not generally" - it's copyrighted.
  • "Some Representatives or Senators might choose not to formally archive their social media posts, since they are already in the public domain." and "Since Member tweets, Facebook posts, and other social media items are in the public domain on the social media services’ platforms, interested parties might be able to use those to help understand public policy development." Source: "Social Media Adoption by Members of Congress: Trends and Congressional Considerations" by Jacob R. Straus, Specialist on the Congress, 2018, p 13. – published by the Congress, link.
  • Keeping in the spirit of how public domain and the US Federal Government works, the Official Guide to Government Information and Services states: "U.S. government creative works are usually produced by government employees as part of their official duties. These works include writings, images, videos, and computer code. A government work is generally not subject to copyright in the U.S. Unless the work falls under an exception, anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: 1)Reproduce the work in print or digital form; 2)Create derivative works; 3)Perform the work publicly; 4)Display the work and 5) Distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." Source
  • Regarding Congresspeople running for office, if they are an incumbent, their work is in the public domain: "...works created by incumbent presidents or U.S. Senators or Representatives, if made within the scope of their employment, lack copyright protection and are free to use."' Source
  • Please note, that many of the official social media accounts for federal employees are used exclusively during their tenure as federal employees and then they are abandoned and archived. Example: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a personal instgram which is 100% copyrighted. She also had a Congressional Instagram, which is public domain unless it's a previously copyrighted photograph. Here's another example - Ivanka Trump has a personal Instgram, but no official government account, therefore all of the photographs – unless stated otherwise by Trump - are copyrighted. Here's another example: Eric Swalwell has a personal Twitter account which is copyrighted (unless stated otherwise) and he has an official Congress Twitter account that is public domain and selected Tweets will be archived by the Library of Congress upon retirement from the federal government. It's pretty obvious that the recent photos of MLK are copyrighted, when the photograph that his staffer took of him talking at a town hall is public domain. You can read examples of the policies set forth for officials - such as the one's for the Senate, here.
  • The General Services Administration oversees developing policies and relationships with social media companies to ensure that the TOS of companies align with federal policies. For example, these are the guidelines for federal employees from Instagram. You can find the entire list of modified social media TOS to accompany federal work here. These guidelines are in place for all federal employees. Note, you won't see "public domain" used in any of these - that's not how it works. However, you'll notice that federal guidelines supersede social media TOS. Example from Facebook: "If You are the federal government or a federal government agency in the United States: "Terms relating to indemnification do not apply to your Official Use except to the extent expressly authorized by federal law." Indemnification includes copyright in social media TOS. Therefore, federal agencies are exempt. You'll notice, it states that if you are a state or local official, your state or local policies supersede Facebook - therefore if you're the Governor of California, your posts are public domain because of state law, but if you're the Governor of Indiana (my home state!) it's copyrighted. The same goes for every social media outlet.
  • Also, please denote the public domain license - created by Commonists - for Congress: "This United States Congress image is in the public domain. This may be because it was taken by an employee of the Congress as part of that person’s official duties, or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress."
Thanks again for your consideration and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this C.V. but you are not running for an Administratorship confirmation and let me tell you that I never look at the uploader's identity each time (dozen or even hundreds times a day) I put files on deletion so this DR is in no way against you but your files. Nevertheless COM:AGF requires that (people always omit the last phrase) "Editors should do their best to document the files they upload, and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate", which it is because you haven't replied yet to initial rationale for DR: "Not works by Terri Sewell, Bradley Byrne, Martha Roby et al. Any evidence they are works of an employee of the U.S. Congress. " I must admit that after having shown you that Terri Sewell, Bradley Byrne, Martha Roby et al. can't be the photographers you have changed that for a vague "staff picture" without naming the photographers or explaining why they are supposed to be employee of the U.S. Congress. In short and if I understand you well you say:
1) once shot these files are public domain because they are works of employee of the U.S. Congress (without proving it);
2) once posted on Representatives social media they become public domain (but it contradicts what sou said before) though it's not exactly right (please re-read "generally public domain", "creative works are usually produced by government employees as part of their official duties" and "A government work is generally not subject to copyright in the U.S." above.)Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following photographs are not part of the public domain photographs that have been uploaded. If there are concerns about their inclusion in Commons it should be brought up with the original uploaders or creators:
Missvain (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]