Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/Organic Chemistry Images

Organic Chemistry Images
Many of the images in the organic chemistry textbook were uploaded by Karl Wick, who it looks like hasn't been around since July, or so. I don't know the guy, so I can't vouch for the source of the images, but I'd like to at least make an argument for some on his delete list to be undeleted:

Butane.png, ethane.png, ethene.png, methyl.png, pentane.png, propane.png, D-orbital.png, S-orbital.png, P-orbital.png, Isobutane2.png, N-pentane1.png, N-pentane2.png, Pi-bonding.png, 2-cyclopropylbutane.png, Bicyclo2.1.0pentane.png, Cyclopropane.png, Linepentane.png, Propaneline.png, Cyclopentaneline.png, Cyclopropaneline.png, Ethylcyclopentane.png, 1,1-dimethylcyclopentane.png, 1,1-dimethylcyclopentane.png, 1,3-dicyclopropylpropane.png, 1,3-dimethylcyclopentane.png, 237trimethyloctanelines.png, Dibromomethylcyclohexane.png, Dibromomethylcyclohexane2.png, 1,1-Dichloro-3-methylcyclo.png, Cyclopropylethylmethylcyclo.png, Cholesterolrings.png, Delta-bonding.png, Methylnewman.png - All of these images are simple, unedited, ChemDraw captures. Some of them are very simple, uncopyrightable shapes: square, hexagon, etc. There are other images in his list that are also ChemDraw renderings, but have possibly been edited and I'm not including them, since I can't say if they were edited and if so, by whom.

Arrow.png - This may also be ChemDraw, but I can't be sure. It's a tiny arrow. There are only so many ways to make an arrow this size... Surely no copyright is involved.

-- Pete 17:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately our hands are tied... they were deleted/will be deleted because they have no copyright status, and attempts to contact him have been unsuccessful. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. Just thought I'd try to save what I could. I was looking over Wikimedia Commons and they seem to have a lot of chemistry images. Whatever else is missing, I can reproduce with ChemDraw myself. Just trying to save myself some work, but I certainly understand the situation. -- Pete 18:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The simple ones are most likely ineligible for copyright; that is, they consist of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. I created a template (&#123;{PD-ineligible}}) based off of the Commons counterpart (&#123;{PD-ineligible}}). I don't think we should tag images as ineligible for copyrihgt en masse, but those that are just lines and letters (with no color or stylistic features) certainly seem, to me at least, to contain no original authorship. I have tagged a few chemical structures with it. Of course, the image deletion bot (if we ever get one) will have to recognize these tags, so I guess my work won't matter if you (the administrators) find that you don't want to add more copyright complications &mdash; User:Iamunknown 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Undelete - this is something that is perhaps a bit of some people being a little bit over zealous here. As I was pointed out on a discussion on Foundation-l about copyright, there is a statue of limitations that applies to even blatantly obvious copyright violations that must be dealt with between three and five years (depending on the kind of infringement and other factors) in order for the copyright owner to take formal legal action.  I'm not sayhing that necessarily this is justfication, but there was also a presumption in the beginning of Wikibooks (and Wikipedia) that "all" content was available under the GFDL, or perhaps fair use rationales.  I'm not saying this is perfect, and this is precisely why all new images require a disclaimer of copyright status.  But at the same time older images should have a presumption of "good faith", which would include the idea that these were legitimate uploads unless the original uploader claims otherwise.  And in pointing out the statue of limitations, these images were old enough that they may even fall under those specific exceptions.  This doesn't mean that they can necessarily be redistributed under the GFDL with other content (certainly a reason to keep them deleted), but the need to get them deleted immediately is not pressing either.  --Rob Horning 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete - we can use Template:GFDL-presumed on them. --Iamunknown 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are any older images left on Wikibooks, I would strongly recommend that, yes. I don't know how many images that involves, but the number of images that are listed on the deletion log is huge lately.  --Rob Horning 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Karl Wick posted something on either textbook-l or foundation-l recently... has anyone tried to get in touch with him again?-- SB_Johnny | talk 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did get in touch with Karl Wick, and he cleared up the issues with his images. I posted a note concerning the status of these images on his user page. All the chemistry images are created by him, and released under the GFDL. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well here's a question then: do we know which images we need to undelete?-- SB_Johnny | talk 23:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Undelete We should assume good faith unless images are obviously copyrighted or a complaint about breach of copyright is received. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)