Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 May 1

= May 1 =

Can we upload a Zoom interview screencap?
If someone is interviewed on a video call and the conductor of the interview publishes the video under a license allowed on Commons like CC BY, can we take a screencap of the interviewee and upload it on Commons? If so, is one to credit the publisher, or the interviewee? Nardog (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would we want to do so? A Zoom screen shot is likely to be a really poor quality image.  Are there no better images of the person available?  (Also… be wary of avatars). Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's purely hypothetical, but it isn't uncommon for us to have to resort to a screencap of a video on YouTube or Vimeo with a CC license when there are no other free pictures of the person available. So the scenario just occurred to me. Nardog (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are allowed to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, and copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format (provided you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate the changes made), then surely you are allowed to extract a frame, reformat it, and publish it anywhere under any "downwards compatible" licence. (I'm not fully sure, though, if CC BY-SA is downwards compatible with CC BY; one might interpret imposing the additional SA requirement as applying a legal term that legally restricts others from doing anything the CC BY licence permitted – viz. remixing, transforming, or building upon the material, and then distributing their contributions under the CC BY licence instead of CC BY-SA.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 07:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're answering whether we could upload compatibly licensed interviews in general, which is not at all what I'm asking. The copyright of a video stream in a video call belongs to the person being filmed (or whoever set up the camera) because they're the one who recorded the footage, right? So if the interviewer publishes the entire call under a Commons-compatible license, absent evidence that the participant agreed to release the footage under said license, isn't extracting only the interviewee footage akin to extracting from a larger work third-party material over which the larger work's author has no control? You can't upload a logo well above the threshold of originality just because it was part of a free video—can you upload a video stream just because it was part of a free video? Is the mere fact the interviewer published a work containing third-party footage under a Commons-compatible license enough grounds to assume the author of the footage has relinquished some rights and allowed release of their footage, too, under such a license? Nardog (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the original publisher publishes the material unlawfully under a licence that is not applicable because they do not have the necessary rights, all bets are off. --Lambiam 17:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, unless the footage use is so small it passes as de minimis, which it usually is not (so a logo wasn't a good comparison). Nardog (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Soviet ICBM deployment
I did read a while ago that the Soviet Union stationed about one third of its nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles against China, with the other two-thirds against NATO and pals. Is this right? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 21:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

An 'intercontinental' ballistic missile is not "stationed;" it doesn't have to be. It may be assigned a particular target at a particular time, but the next day that may well change. Further, it is highly unlikely that any nuclear power would ever explain to the world exactly what it intends to use against which target. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, they do have range constraints and are typically stationed at one given point. So that wouldn't be correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you think they are moved from place to place? Maybe the mobile ones -- not the majority, by a long shot -- but the silos tend to stay in one place for quite a while. Easier to build a new one than to move an existing one. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this document by the Congressional Research Service updated 21 April, the current Russian deployed inventory (ICBM's range > 5500km) is:
 * SS-18 46, (460 warheads)
 * SS-19 4
 * SS-25 27
 * SS-27 233 (698 warheads)
 * silo 80 (140 warheads)
 * mobile 153 (558 warheads)
 * I think all these have the range to hit the U.S. and NATO countries from any base in Russia. The first deployment of the SS-26 was planned to be to Irkutsk and with a 5800km range this would count as an ICBM, but target China or Alaska and not NATO. Currently four of eleven missile bases are in the far east. Of the 11 submarines carrying 176 SLBMs and 816 warheads, Pacific Fleet (Russia) lists a Delta III and three Borey class for 64 missiles and 403 warheads. There are also the Tu-95 strategic bombers of the 326th Heavy Bomber Aviation Division based in Ukrainka.
 * According to GlobalSecurity.org in the 60's and prior to the INF Treaty there were 22 IRBM bases with eight in the far east tailored to strike not only at Alaska, Japan, Okinawa, and Formosa - but also at Red China. The map of missile deployments eliminated by the INF on this page is not quite clear but it looks there were 387 short range missiles, 65 SS-4 Sandal and 243 SS-20 deployed against Western Europe and 163 SS-20 deployed to the far east. These are not ICBMs, i believe the cutoff of 5500km was specifically to class the SS-20 as an intermediate-range ballistic missile. I suppose this might all add up to about a third of the capability deployed to the east before the INF. fiveby(zero) 23:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)