Commons:Deletion requests/File:Github russia block.png
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is sufficient text here to meet COM:TOO. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment While I don't read or speak Russian, before uploading I had a friend who does look at it and he told me that it merely consisted of 4 reasons why the current website breaks laws under the Russian Federation. (so that's why I used the "not a literary work" tag since it's just facts) The author is very likely en:Roscomnadzor (notice all the links to rkn.gov.ru), a Russian government agency, that was in charge of the block, so additionally it should be public domain by virtue of being a government work. Opencooper (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this is an en:edict of government to qualify as exempt under Russian law. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 03:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm a bit out of my depth here, but the page you linked notes that the term is distinct from a "work of the US government" which is more what I was getting at here rather than a specific edict. Regarding Russian law, the template I linked does seem to be quite broad in what it deems as documents to be excluded: "other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character". en:Copyright law of the Russian Federation#Objects_of_copyright also notes that "purely informational reports on events and facts are not copyrightable" (except for "commentary, analysis, prediction or other interpretation") so that also seems to back up my previous point. Opencooper (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good point about the purely informational nature of the text. Probably PD then. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm a bit out of my depth here, but the page you linked notes that the term is distinct from a "work of the US government" which is more what I was getting at here rather than a specific edict. Regarding Russian law, the template I linked does seem to be quite broad in what it deems as documents to be excluded: "other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character". en:Copyright law of the Russian Federation#Objects_of_copyright also notes that "purely informational reports on events and facts are not copyrightable" (except for "commentary, analysis, prediction or other interpretation") so that also seems to back up my previous point. Opencooper (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this is an en:edict of government to qualify as exempt under Russian law. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 03:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete I don't read Russian, so I won't close this, but the statements above that purely informational text does not have a copyright are incorrect. Virtually all full sentences have a copyright as literary works. One must read "literary" in the copyright sense of the word -- computer programs are copyrighted as literary works as is almost every other full sentence, purely informational or not. Most of WP is purely informational, but it all has a copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept: as per above. --Yann (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
