Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 January 23



File:US patent 5136502.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 - post 1989 patents are copyrighted. There are parts of the image which are PD-ineligible - namely everything other than the abstract and the drawing. If someone wants me to undelete it and to black out those parts, I will do so. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * File:US patent 5136502.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Post-1989 patent is non-free and can therefore only be used under WP:NFCC. No WP:NFUR is provided. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 16:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Maybe, just MAYBE, portions of the patent description could be considered copyright protected in some circumstances. But this is the front page which is essentially just information ABOUT the patent and is copied and distributed all the time for information purposes. Being unable to copy and distribute patents defeats their entire purpose. Suggest the person who tagged this has made a serious mistake. GDallimore (Talk) 22:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User: RJaguar3 Please provide a reference to support your assertion that "Post-1989 patent is non-free"--Nowa (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From commons:Template:PD-US-patent: "Note: This only applies to images published before March 1, 1989. Patents published after that date are most likely copyrighted, unless in the public domain for another reason, such as ." (emphasis in original).  See also commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-patent-no notice.  No copyright notice is required for a work published after 1989, including a patent.  The fact that the law might permit patents to be reproduced verbatim does not allow patent images to be used except under WP:NFCC, since the preparation of derivative works is restricted.  RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 04:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We might, however, want to look for an outside source for the 1989 restriction.  The USPTO states:
 * Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowa (talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 January 2014‎ (UTC)
 * 37 CFR 1.71(d) allows for a patent applicant to include a copyright notice in the patent, but only if the boilerplate text of 1.71(e) is included as well. 37 CFR 1.84(s) allows for drawings to have a copyright notice in a specified manner, but again, only if the boilerplate text is included as well.  Even so, no copyright notice is necessary to receive copyright protection (but the evidentiary presumption in 17 USC 401(d) is one reason to include a copyright notice).  Thus, in my view, the tldr for post-1989 patents is
 * No notice, no disclaimer: patent copyrighted, innocent infringement available as a defense
 * Notice, no disclaimer: USPTO rejects patent
 * Notice and disclaimer: patent copyrighted, innocent infringement defense limited
 * RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your position, but I think this issue transcends this particular image. Perhaps we should continue the discussion at commons:Template:PD-US-patent.  I already see some links there that need updating.--Nowa (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Ann Rivers' Official 2013 Senate Portrait.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Keep - the website states its content is public domain. The photograph appears to be taken by the State of Washington. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Ann Rivers& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The SoS's website states "This is a public domain web site. Most of the information on this site is not copyrighted. You may use, share or copy such information appearing on this site. Of course, it would be appropriate to give credit to the Office of the Secretary of State as the source of this information. Our site may contain text, artwork, photos or other content that is copyrighted by others and is being used with the express permission of the copyright holder. Therefore, it is recommended that you contact our Webmaster or Communications Director for permission to use information contained on this site." - So I went to the page linked as the source and this photo doesn't match, so I am unable to confirm if the picture is under copyright or not.  Admr Boltz  18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Surprised I did that when I uploaded... Found (what I believe to be) the proper source! Thanks for letting me know. I'll let you do what you want about this. PrairieKid (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest checking your other photos from the SoS website and confirming their statuses. --  Admr Boltz  19:04, 23 January 2014 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.