Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mifiin

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Files uploaded by Mifiin (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Majority of files coming from Offficial X (Twitter) accounts of different departments and people related to Govt of India. Nearly, all are uploaded under GODL-India license. Although some accounts are offical accounts of the concered departments others are personal accounts of the ministers, the files have never been released under GODL. Bcoz twitter is not the place for it.

List of files

ShaanSenguptaTalk 03:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
You are very much confused about what's personal and what's govt account. As long as it is listed as Govt account it is so. These X accounts are done at the request of the Govt department that contact X and hence listed as such being Govt accounts and the content of those are for public consumption. So I would request not to waste your time, in pursuing absolute useless tasks. To the Admins please note that this is misunderstanding on Shaan Sengupta's part. Even SpokespersonNavy @indiannavy as Personal account could be an attempt at humour. :) Please remove the delete warning from all those images. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifiin (talk • contribs)
@Mifiin there is absolutely no misunderstanding on my part. Regarding the alleged confusion, I have explained on my talk page under your thread. I won't repeat. Regarding the grey tick on X accounts, it is just a part of new verification policy of X. There is nothing much to read into it. It is present even in MPs who are not part of the govt and are in opposition. God knows when you will learn this simple thing. Period ShaanSenguptaTalk 08:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious, that you are confusing Blue Tick accounts and the accounts that are marked Govt agency. Consider Prime Minister Narendra Modi's own account. It reads "This account is verified because it is a government or multilateral organization account. Learn more Verified since June 2010." So its Government account and managed by Government of India. If account is personal accounts, its specifically mentioned as such as well. Even JoeBidens account is Govt account. "Husband to @DrBiden, proud father and grandfather. Ready to finish the job for all Americans. Official account is @POTUS" oops my bad, Bidens account is also Govt account.. Here also its mentioned as a "This account is verified because it is a government or multilateral organization account. Learn more" So as long as the accounts are marked govt accounts those data publishd through them are in public domain. Mifiin (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My last try with this one. If you don't understand even now, then god knows how. Just bcoz some account has grey tick doesn't mean its managed by govt. See for example RajeevRC_X has grey tick. Rajeev is no longer a part of govt. He manages his account himself. DefenceMinIndia has blue tick but is the official handle of MoD, Govt of India. This is managed by Defence ministry and is a govt account. Same goes with Jairam_Ramesh. He has a grey tick but is not a part of the govt but of opposition. He runs his account on his own. JoeBiden (grey tick) was used to campaign for HarrisWalz bcoz its operated by him and not govt. Do you think that any account which is handled by the govt can be used to campaign for a particular candidate in an election. Same goes for Modi. narendramodi is used for election campaign bcoz its his personal account but PMOIndia isn't used as such bcoz it is of govt. If you can't understand even now then I am out of this discussion. Bcoz I am done explaining the same thing over and over again. Period. ShaanSenguptaTalk 12:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RajeevRC_X was minister and has got his Govt account verification during that time. It has not been revoked at the moment. Probably you could notify X about it. You have pointed to a flaw in X which is that Jairam Ramesh, Rajeev Chandrashekar were indeed ministers during previous govts. Yes X must have revoked "This account is verified because it is a government or multilateral organization account." While Narendra Modi is still the PM and Rajnath Singh is the Defense Minister as of now. The equivalent of @POTUS is @narendramodi and equivalent of @WhiteHouse is @@PMOIndia Mifiin (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And its also not necessary that everything has to fit and suit the U.S govt equivalence to accounts. As long as Narendra Modi is PM and Rajnath Singh is defence minister and the accounts are verified as belonging to the "This account is verified because it is a government or multilateral organization account." It comes under that until they are no more serving as Govt ministers. I think there is nothing more to discuss about it. Its crystal clear. Mifiin (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete unless it can be shown that there is a copy on a government website. That remains the uploader's responsibility. Yann (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are suggesting that Public records be deleted from Wikipedia. That's literally Vandalism. You may have your own theory or what can be permitted and what not. But as long as they are public records from Government run accounts its good to go. Please also note that these public records are not platform bound, but who created it. As long as they are from Government run accounts/sites/social media platforms and is such accounts are recognized as govt organization, they are good to go. You are unnecessarily confusing license with platform where its published. That's why I am very careful about what I upload into Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Due diligence is given while uploading the same. Only images from govt run accounts, sites are uploaded. Mifiin (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all those which come from official accounts. Better, procedurally close, and let the nom renominate any that are provably, as they allege "personal accounts of the ministers". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing One question. On what basis can we keep the ones coming from Twitter official accounts of the departments when many are run under contracts awarded by the govt. How can we apply GODL-India on images which are never released under it on a govt website. As far as the ones uploaded by personal accounts of ministers is concerned, the uploaders knowledge and logic regarding what is personal and official is so wrong that I believe they are not for Commons. You can see why I am saying so above in their comment or on this thread on my talk page. ShaanSenguptaTalk 12:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite evidence that GODL-India requires media to be "released under it on a govt website". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GODL says the meaning of publication is mentioned in THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957, which says 3. Meaning of publication.— For the purposes of this Act, “publication” means making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public.
4. When work not deemed to be published or performed in public.— Except in relation to infringement of copyright, a work shall not be deemed to be published or performed in public, if published, or performed in public, without the licence of the owner of the copyright. Now to my understanding, there is no way publication of images only on social media sites satisfy the last line of section 4, bcoz it is uploaded there without the licence of the owner. So how can it be reproduced somewhere else citing it as a source. Correct me if I am wrong. ShaanSenguptaTalk 13:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GODL-India license text by Mifiin
"This file is a copyrighted work of the Government of India, licensed under the Government Open Data License - India (GODL).
Following the mandate of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of Government of India that applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information.
The user must acknowledge the provider, source, and license of data by explicitly publishing the attribution statement, including the DOI (Digital Object Identifier), or the URL (Uniform Resource Locator), or the URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) of the data concerned.
The user must not indicate or suggest in any manner that the data provider(s) endorses their use and/or the user. The data provider(s) are not liable for any errors or omissions, and will not under any circumstances be liable for any loss, injury or damage caused by its use.
The data provider(s) do not guarantee the continued supply of updated or up-to-date versions of the data, and will not be held liable in case the continued supply of updated data is not provided.
Exemptions: The license does not cover the following kinds of data: a. personal information; b. data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive; c. names, crests, logos and other official symbols of the data provider(s); d. data subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade-marks and official marks; e. military insignia; f. identity documents; and g. any data that should not have been publicly disclosed for the grounds provided under section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
That's what GODL-India means. It's based on Right to Information Act, 2005. Any data that Goverment of India publishes is in public domain comes under GODL-India. What they have will not publish like sensitive data that are marked as Secret etc and cannot be accessed and published under GODL-India. Thats what it means. This is same as what the U.S public documentation is about. You see U.S Government publishing data including pictures, videos through various platforms and all of them be it in fb, or twitter or YouTube or through their own website are all public data. They also have sensitive secret content marked as such and that are never published and if someone steals and leaks it, then it don't come under such public domain license. The Snowden episode etc comes under that category. Other than that the Government documents are public documents, paid and created with public money. So everything that's published by government irrespective of platform, are all for public consumption. Even if an employee takes a picture with his or her phone during office hours/on duty, its deemed public data and public can seek that data through RTI or Freedom of information act in their respective countries. Mifiin (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mifiin the whole debate is about the meaning of the term publish. Any work will be deemed GODL-India only when it is published as such. GODL says the meaning of publication is mentioned in THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957. How is the term published defined in The Indian Copyright Act? A work shall not be deemed to be published or performed in public, if published, or performed in public, without the licence of the owner of the copyright. Now tell me, how can we assume that if uploaded on X (Twitter) it satisfies this. Nowhere the licence of the owner of the copyright is mentioned in any uploads on X or on any social media handles. ShaanSenguptaTalk 12:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the text quoted by Shaan Sengupta which constitutes evidence that GODL-India requires media to be "released under it on a govt website". It simply indicates that a work is not deemed published if the only publication is in breach of the work's copyright or licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publish never means though a specific paltform. Whatever the govt releases is absolutely public data and for public consumption. Thats where the GODL-India comes in. Platform can be from Websites to Flickr to youtube, to Twitter or X or Facebook or any other platforms. Even the data that govt has not released but are not confidential in nature, the public can file Right to Information act and access it and publish those. Only confidential data is never released even if you ask through Right to Information act. Hope that clears your doubt. Mifiin (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posting on twitter is not Publishing? It means bringing out from the camera and determining whether the image is of secretive nature and should be labelled as classified and not released or released for public. Thats it. Don't fry your brain with unwanted thoughts. Mifiin (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mifiin: You write "if an employee takes a picture with his or her phone during office hours/on duty, its deemed public data". Actually, this is wrong, and you are confusing "public data" with "published under the GODL". This is not even true in USA, which have a much clearer law about what is in the public domain. Yann (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Just search for 1st amendment auditors in the U.S. They are passionate people who go to government buildings and take pictures and videos from publically accessible areas. At times, the govt employees do take their picture and these same auditors put forth a Freedom of Information request and get the image released to them. So you have very wrong information regarding public data. Every work of the U.S is in public domain. Remember this is a democratic government run on the money of the people. Only those data that are deemed confidential are held back. You can even ask for police cam videos through the same Freedom of Information act. Also where the record room is, you could go and record those records yourself without paying a penny in the U.S. You need to update your knowledge on the same. Mifiin (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't know what you taking about. Please read the law before arguing here. We have a nice free article at en:Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. Yann (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know very much what I am talking about. It says a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties". "such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in the public domain." Proving what I have mentioned that the work of U.S govt employees are in Public domain. Thank you for providing the proof and clarifying to everyone that the work is in Public domain. Thank you. Mifiin (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not what you wrote above. Only works done as part of that person's official duties are in the public domain. That is a very important distinction. And while any work by US government employee as part of that person's official duties are in the public domain, there is nothing like this in Indian law. Only works published on a government website with a required mention are under the GODL in India. Yann (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say at their homes? Office is personal duty space and office hours are official duty hours. Mifiin (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • correction it should read Employee/Official duty space.
Mifiin (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are trying to restrict it to "Government website" without a single statement to back it. GODL is not about "Website. I don't get where you got the "Website" idea? Be knowing that GODL means all Government data that's not classified, and trying to say that U.S laws are totally different from Indian ones. You check the Right to Information act. You will come to know. Mifiin (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: As far as I read the discussion we can keep files published by official accounts and official means accounts of institutions but not accounts of persons. Files published by personal accounts of government members need to be deleted. Personal accounts can be considered as official accounts if the government press office confirms that they consider them as official accounts. GPSLeo (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  I withdraw my nomination Per the comments above and especially by The Squirrel Conspiracy at COM:ANU, I am willing to withdraw the nominations here. I would also note that starting from now, I will not be active at any of the projects of the WMF for next few days. Therefore, I would request someone more experienced to renominate the violations, if any left. I had nominated the obvious vios for SD. I have addressed the accusations at ANU. Thank you. ShaanSenguptaTalk 05:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Mifiin&oldid=964038702"