Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vitrification1.jpg

This file is not PD. It comes from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its copyright status notice. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. --Bomazi (converted from copyvio tag to DR since this file has many many usages, is a FP and is uploaded since 2005 --Saibo (Δ) 01:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• (without making more research) could be true --Saibo (Δ) 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom 79.237.163.206 08:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since when does the importance of a picture to wikipedia have any bearing on its copyright status? The argument is uncontroversial and other pictures from the same source have been speedy deleted with no discussion. The proper course of action in this case is to move the file to wikipedia, where fair use can be argued, and delete it from commons. Bomazi (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does since you will probably not be the one who restores all usages if it was deleted due to wrong or mistaken facts/conclusion. Restoring is really no fun and takes ages (manual work!). Do you understand?
    In addition and image that old and featured gets a lot of review (sure - not directed at copyright, but at least a bit). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - http://picturethis.pnl.gov/ requires attribution. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! [1] even says "If you wish to use a credit line... " - so maybe not even attribution necessary. But I can only find this statement: "are to be used for lawful purposes only"[2]. Is this a sufficient release? Modification? By everybody? Although I cannot see anything to the contrary. --Saibo (Δ) 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Neither the link provided by Pieter nor the link provided by Saibo freely license the images, and the link provided by Bomazi does indicate that the use of documents on that web server is limited to non-commercial uses. However, the website does clearly contemplate third party use of the materials on that site - unfortunately, it's not clear that PNNL freely licenses its images in accordance with Commons requirements (and if the copyright notice identified by Bomazi applies, then it does not). Since this image is used on so many pages, could someone interested in preserving this image contact the PNNL marketing office (link on the page Pieter provided) to see if we can get free license confirmation through OTRS. If that confirmation can be obtained, it would remove all significant doubt. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bomazi's link is for the whole pnl website. But this comes from picturethis.pnl.gov with images that are released for any lawful use. Of course that includes commercial use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The site says "Photos and graphics obtained from PictureThis are to be used for lawful purposes only" -- that doesn't mean that they are freely licensed, merely that they cannot be used for illegal uses. And how do we know that the link Bozami provided does not apply to the entire site? I'm honestly asking the question - it refers to all documents on the "web server".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Default is: protected by copyright. Then the lab puts its free images on a picture-this site for anybody to use. Why is that hard to understand? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't pointed to anything that says that the images are free to use in accordance with Commons requirements or that the Copyright statement does not apply to them. That's what is difficult to understand. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: no evidence that it's free enough for Commons, e.g. no explicit permission for derivates, even no explicit permission at all, only implicit Jcb (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]