Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 March 27



File:4U9525 flight path4.png

 * 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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator; no support for deletion Superm401 - Talk 03:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * File:4U9525 flight path4.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Aronzak ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violates FlightRadar24's Terms and Conditions of use, section 2:. 2. Use License Website’s information and Services are provided for personal, non-commercial use only. Permission is granted to temporarily download one copy of the materials (information or software) on Flightradar24’s web site for personal, non-commercial transitory viewing only. This is the grant of a license, not a transfer of title, and under this license you may not: Modify or copy the materials; Use the materials for any commercial purpose, or for any public display (commercial or non-commercial); Attempt to decompile or reverse engineer any software contained on Flightradar24's web site; Remove any copyright or other proprietary notations from the materials; or Transfer the materials to another person or "mirror" the materials on any other server. emphasis added. See also Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525 JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely Flightradar24 can't claim copyright on ADS-B data? Alakzi (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it proper for the file uploader to simply delete the tag, as done here ? JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's likely to take 24 to 48 hours for some companies to respond to some inquiries - I would rather kill the tag before the file gets deleted.

Firstly, I'd ask you to raise any copyright issues with me directly rather than forcing myself and other contributors to argue the merits of the track in various places.

Flightradar24 says in their press section "Screenshots from Flightradar24.com or any of the Flightradar24 apps may be used for free by media if screenshots are attributed to Flightradar24. Websites publishing screenshots must link to Flightradar24.com."

The use of GPS data is no different here than in Malaysia Airlines 370, which FlighRadar24 explicitly gives permission to use. AHeenen "Since the location of the aircraft is a fact, not a creative work, and the map traced purports to show the path that Flight 370 traveled based on primary & secondary radar, the flight path is not subject to copyright"

I'll add a similar copyright justification.

Additionally, FlightAware, which I checked the flightradar24 data against in an unpublished graph, has a second set of GPS co-ordinates, and state "Accredited news outlets and members of the media may reproduce or redistribute FlightAware content... contingent that FlightAware is cited..."

BEA permits their photos to be used copyright-free with attribution - the same will happen for charts when they have a full report. These images will be replaced when BEA puts out their final report. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Flightradar24's Terms and conditions refer to screencaps of the website, embedding parts of the website itself, not press releases that they explicitly release on their twitter account to be copied by journalists and media outlets, as their tweets are intended. Slides from a BEA press conference match the release and they say they're providing raw data to the BEA. In the absence of any evidence that they intend to treat this differently to the Malaysia Airlines 370 disaster where they publicly announce that their data can be used, then the presumption should be that they don't intend to sue Wikimedia commons. If you have such evidence then present it, otherwise there isn't an issue here. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On the CSV file that was used by me and other people to produce the map, Mike, who released it publicly, says "I was talking with a lady on CNN for almost 1 hour yesterday to explain the data in first post"
 * This data is not a copyvio if the person who released it provided it to the media. Because this is the third story on ITN with 166,000 views, it is difficult not to see this as insulting me personally in front of a huge audience. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mere facts are not copyrightable, period. Where is the map blank ORIGINALLY from?  I'm not seeing that stated on the image description page.  That is the only thing here that's potentially an issue - city locations, the data used to draw the line, etc, are not copyrightable.  I see that the map is a blow up of File:Germanwings Flight 9525 flight path topographic.png, but where did that map come from?  Second problem: the source map is under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license.  The derivative work cannot be posted under the GFDL - it needs to use the CC-BY-SA-3.0. --B (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * this one CC-by-sa 4.0 and GFDL. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, and I see it does say on File:Germanwings Flight 9525 flight path topographic.png what the source is, who the original author is, and has a link to File:France relief location map.jpg. So that's all fine.  So my only point of contention is that File:Germanwings Flight 9525 flight path topographic.png is CC-BY-SA-3.0 (which, it would have been nice if AHeneen had chosen to multilicense the derivative work under the same licenses as the source work, but that is by no means a requirement).  Because the source image is CC-BY-SA-3.0, then your image can only be CC-BY-SA-3.0.  You need to remove GFDL from it.  You also should, in the "Author" box say something like this "Cropped from a map by AHeneen.  Relief map by Eric Gaba."  That way in downstream uses, the authors will be properly attributed. --B (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed GFDL. Any other changes feel free to modify. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you take a free source, draw a couple of lines and dump a little self-written text onto it, and publish it in accordance with the terms of the source's license, you can't possibly have committed a copyright infringement.  To the contrary of what was said above, the source map is licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA 4.0, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, and 1.0.  There's no requirement that you release the derivative work under CC-BY-SA anything.  Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going off of what the uploader said that File:4U9525 flight path4.png was derived from File:Germanwings Flight 9525 flight path topographic.png. But on looking at it, I see it is not - that both of those were derived from File:France relief location map.jpg, so yes, you are correct, the licenses are fine. --B (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Nyttend and thanks to the uploader(s) for their work. Useful and appreciated. Good article here BTW. WP at its best. c1cada (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the entries, above, please withdraw and close this FFD. Keep. Thanks to all for their informative comments, and add my thanks to the uploader(s) as well. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.