File talk:BrAirtours 28M 8-1988 App8fig5.jpg

Dispute non-free content criteria

I provided the following rationale for using an image when uploading this file:

This illustration from the accident report clearly shows the direction of the wind and flames, as well as the magnitude of the fire, making it more understandable why escape from the rear of the aircraft was so difficult. Saying the aircraft was facing 315 degrees and the wind was from 250 degrees, or that the aircraft was facing northwest while the wind was from the west is much less intuitive. Describing the extent and pattern of spilled and pooled fuel would be even more cumbersome.

To that I would more specifically add that it shows the result of the flames spread along the path of flowing and pooled fuel, and how aft exits on both sides were unusable for evacuation, as well as the left overwing exit. This was the unpredicted result of evacuating the plane with the fire on the windward side of the aircraft when the wind was mild. The effect of a mild wind on the spread of such a fire and its intrusion into the passenger compartment was not known before this accident. Again, writing that out in prose would be cumbersome and difficult to envision.

I see also that I did not address the issue of a free-use replacement in the rationale. I somehow missed that item when I uploaded the file. However, under "other information" I wrote the following:

No other free image is available showing these conditions of fuel, fire, and wind relative to the aircraft and to the taxiway. Consensus in WP is to use only diagrams from official reports in disaster articles.

However, in looking at the source page, it specifies at the bottom of that page that all content, unless otherwise specified, is available under Open Government Licence v3.0. (Nothing on that page or within the document states that he document is not covered by Open Government Licence v3.0.) That license states that it covers "use and re-use" of the content. It further states, "These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of which license copyright and database rights."

Therefore, I think my greater error is in claiming that this was a non-free image, when in fact it is a free image. I plan to upload a full size version of this diagram as a free-use image, with required attributions as specified in the license. In that case, this reduced-size image can be deleted once the new image is uploaded. If this plan satisfies the non-free criteria challenge, please let me know and I will do it right away. Otherwise, I would appreciate suggestions how to make this right. It is clear to me that, under the Open Government Licence v3.0, the Crown intends this material to be used by information providers such as Wikipedia, specifically stating that it is compatible with Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have uploaded the full image licensed under OGL 3.0. The file upload wizard does not have current licensing options. It offers Creative Commons 3.0 but not 4.0, and I couldn't figure out how to attribute OGL 3.0 properly until a bot tagged it as lacking a license and directed me to the tags and told me where to put the correct tag. I had originally put it all in the other information field. I'm not good with tags and licenses, and this is really getting frustrating. Dcs002 (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The actual report (the PDF file) claims "© Crown copyright 1989". Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My initial problem with replace-ability was that it is possible to draw a diagram with the same information, and thus equal encyclopedic value. I'd like to look at that consensus on using official diagrams only; where is this documented? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

MilborneOne, a very experienced editor (I see over 100,000 edits now on his/her talk page) told me about that consensus on the talk page for the flight discussed. I have not seen that consensus discussion myself. However, the source (very bottom of the source page) and related licensing pages (linked from the source page), referenced in the the file page for File:BrAirtours_28M_8-1988_App8fig5.jpg (the full-size version, currently in use in the article for British Airtours Flight 28M), give links showing explicit authorization for use of this Crown copyrighted material under OGL v3.0 unless otherwise stated in the material, and it is not otherwise stated in the report from which this figure was taken. It does not apply to all Crown material, but the source page for the report from which this image was taken states explicitly that all content is available under Open Government License v3.0.

This conversation is necessary, but I intend to keep the other file (File:BrAirtours_28M_8-1988_App8fig5.jpg) and request a speedy delete for this one, as the other version is of higher quality. I will follow discussions on this page, on File talk:BrAirt28M AAIB App8fig5.jpg (the currently used image, claiming OGL licensing as well), and on the Talk:British Airtours Flight 28M page. I am content with any of these images, including my own created image, but I would prefer to use the current, higher quality image from the actual AAIB report because it is authoritative and because it eliminates my need to approximate the information with my limited artistic skills.

Thank you for helping determine whether this is free and proper use. Knowing this will definitely help me in the future as I make more contributions to other articles. I think illustrations are very important, when available, and I definitely do not want to expose WP to any legal liability for misuse of copyrighted material. Dcs002 (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing the proof of proper license, Dcs002. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)