The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted to Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_May_17#File:Stellar_Spectral_Types_by_NOAO.jpg. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jcpag2012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

An image used under a claim of fair use depicting spectra of different classification of stars and sciency stuff that I don't understand. It was tagged as replaceable fair use by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) and disputed by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), who said "I do not think that 16 spectra can be easily replaced. All published spectra are copyrighted." This seems sufficiently complicated that it should have an FFD, not a unilateral decision, so that people who understand such things can explain it.

There are at least two issues to consider: (1) are the spectra themselves subject to copyright? This seems odd, but for a while (until the Supreme Court struck it down 9-0 in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.), you could patent naturally occurring gene sequences, so courts rule odd things sometimes. (2) If the spectra themselves are not subject to copyright, does this image pass the threshold of creativity? If I create a simple representation of a mathematical or scientific reality where there was no creative thought process involved, then there is no copyright.

So the four possibilities are (a) the spectra are copyrighted, any representation of them would be a derivative work of that copyrighted work, but we should be able to make a WP:FREER version; (b) the spectra are copyrighted, but this representation is a non-creative representation of the underlying reality and so there is no need for a WP:FREER version; (c) the spectra are not copyrighted and we can make a free content version; (d) the spectra are not copyrighted and this representation is PD-ineligible. B (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My argument was nothing to do whether the spectra were PD-ineligible, but due to the claim of fair use. There are PD spectra available from before 1923 in the US. Also photos taken in Australia prior to 1955 are public domain, and US certainly recognises these if taken before 1946. Commons is not deleting those prior to 1955 any more either. There would also be crown copyright expired images available for stellar spectra. (1964 and before). These may all take a bit of work to invert and colour and fatten up to a nice looking bar, but the point is that with a bit of work this cold be assembled from public domain sources.
• On the topic of copyright of spectra, someone else could also make a new spectrum of the same source, and it could look very very similar to the previously taken one. Only differing in noise, linear shift or minor spectral line changes to to star-spots or variability, eclipsing etc. It would be very hard for the earlier spectroscopist who had a similar image to cl,aim copyright over the new image. But I suppose the point is whether the practice is for people to ask for permission to use spectra (answer seems to be yes) so there is an assumption that they are subject to copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Graeme Bartlett:Thank you for replying and this is where I don't know enough about the science to make a judgment call and so I wanted to bring it here. Consider this scenario: there is a mathematical formula that defines the gradient to the right. We would all agree that neither the list of color values nor the gradient generated by those values is subject to copyright because it is not creative. If I understand what you are saying correctly, the image we are considering is a different scenario because there was skill involved, correct? The standard for creativity is that if two people set out to do the same thing, would their works be indistinguishable from each other. And I think from what you are saying, the answer is no, their works would not be indistinguishable, and so this image is copyrightable. So then as a follow-up question, what spectra are needed to show here in order for the reader to understand the topic? Is it sufficient to show old spectra or could you not understand this without seeing the more modern, still subject to copyright, spectra? --B (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know the legalities and I don't know the genetics science well, but I think there's substantial work involved in just identifying a gene sequence, and that effort is what makes the discovery itself copyrightable in genetics. Anyone with a cheap telescope and a spectrograph can go out and (re)discover the spectrum of any of these stars, so the spectra themselves aren't reasonably subject to copyright. And even if they were, the basic properties of the spectra of each type of star have been known since the 19th century, so the copyright on the spectrum itself would have long since expired. But I think that almost certainly any particular representation of the spectrum, and probably any particular measurement of the spectrum of a particular star (irrespective of the representation), would be subject to copyright.
• Old spectra would be fine for demonstrating the basic properties of each stellar classification. However, the detailed descriptions in Stellar classification#Spectral types are probably only reasonably illustrated by a fairly modern image. eg The sentence "O stars have dominant lines of absorption and sometimes emission for He II lines, prominent ionized (Si IV, O III, N III, and C III) and neutral helium lines, strengthening from O5 to O9, and prominent hydrogen Balmer lines, although not as strong as in later types." is talking about many of the faint bumps in the spectra evident in the image we're discussing; an older replacement image would not show the detail necessary to visualize what the text is talking about. (Of course, the non-free use rationale should explain this need. The current rationale, "OBAFGKM", is not a reasonable purpose of use.)
• (Putting on my practicing professional astronomer hat.) This is, in practice, not something that astronomers think about much; once a set of data is published, it's normally considered available for anyone to use with a citation, although it's quite rare for astronomers to bother with a proper license. The major journals have two different sets of licenses: some journals have authors retain the copyright, while others sign the copyright over to the society that publishes the journal. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps we can find some professional astronomers that do own copyright that can release their images for use. Perhaps there are also amateurs that have the equipment to make spectra. But may be the can only spectrograph the brighter kinds of stars. Also if NASA has published spectra then they will likely be public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Copied from WT:AST That depends on your threshold of 'replaceable'. In principle a user could do so, provided that they a) have access to a large (for amateurs) telescope, probably 24-inch or above, b) have a medium-resolution spectrograph which can be attached to it (beyond most amateurs), c) can conceivably observe stars of all those spectral types for sufficient time and d) have the necessary data analysis and graphical skills to convert the raw data into a useful diagram. I think that's pushing things - it's certainly beyond the ability of most amateur astronomy groups. I suppose a university-level observatory might be able to do it as a teaching exercise. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add to my earlier comments: I find it unlikely that suitable data exist in the public domain for someone to generate the figure without new observations. They would need to be uniformly obtained by the same instrument, of a suitable resolution and signal-to-noise, cover the right range of spectral types and be in a useful machine-readable format. Even if the data are available, you would still need an expert (probably a professional astronomer) to do it. Certainly if the file is kept it needs a better rationale. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chupa Chups Melody Pop.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Northamerica1000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is a promo photo of a candy wrapper used under a claim of fair use. This image was previously tagged as replaceable fair use. WP:CSD#F7 only permits speedy deletion if it can be replaced with a free content image, but in this case, it could only be replaced with a WP:FREER image, so it needs to come to FFD. B (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – No fair use or public domain images of Whistle Pops have been found after several internet searches. No free or public domain images of this product exist in the world. Content to facilitate creation of an image that adequately provides the same information has also not been found. As such, use of the copyrighted image from Chupa Chups is permissible, as per WP:NFCC. Images of and content about whistle pops available on the internet are literally all copyrighted. Furthermore, I have requested on my talk page that the deletion nominator provide evidence that a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, and included a ping to them there and added a talkback template on their talk page directing them to the discussion. It does not appear that such content qualifying the deletion of this page actually exists on the internet.

Also, omission of the image would significantly decrease the educational value of the article, whereas its use significantly enhances it. The image functions solely as an educational tool to provide illustrative context about the topic, is functional to enhance and improve the article for educational purposes, and is a small-sized, low-resolution image. No free equivalent is available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – why not buy one and take a photo of it? Eeekster (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Such an image would still be copyrighted, and would need to have the same Non-free use rationale as exists on the present file page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - To respond to Northamerica1000, it is true that a freely licensed photo of the wrapper would still carry the copyright of the underlying work, but that is exactly what WP:FREER addresses. "We would use a photograph where the photographer has licensed their photograph under a free license, retaining the copyright of the derivative work, instead of a photograph that has non-free licenses for both the photograph and work of art." Because someone could go out and take a photo of the candy and release their copyright claims under a free license, that image would be WP:FREER than this image with both copyrighted wrapper and copyrighted photo. That makes this image replaceable so it fails WP:NFCC#1. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 15:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your input. I have struck my keep !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Error: You must replace Gatewaycmb.jpg with the actual name of the file you are nominating for deletion when using ((subst:ffd2)). The image hasn't verified Wikipedia's rules and regulations.The image isn't copyrighted, thereby I strongly consider that deleting the image would be much preferred Danusker (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.