Commons:Deletion requests/File:Federal Funds Rate and interest rates.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.

File:Federal Funds Rate and interest rates.png edit

Claimed PD-USGov, but appears to use FRED to create a graph using this series, which is "Copyright, 2016, Freddie Mac". FRED terms of use specify that graphs based on copyrighted data can only be used for noncommercial purposes. Wikiacc (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think data (as with any facts) can be copyrighted.

So the question is whether the chart is under: Template:PD-ineligible.

See Commons:Threshold of originality#Charts for more info.

I don't think FRED is considered part of the federal government exactly. See w:Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) and w:Federal Reserve Bank.

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FRED and Freddie Mac are certainly not federal government agencies, at least for copyright purposes. The PD-USGov tag is definitely wrong. I think the only reasonable outcomes are (1) keep and retag as PD-ineligible, or (2) delete. (On a side note, apart from copyright, there's also the FRED terms of use; not sure if we're compelled to follow them.) Wikiacc (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion here:

Commons talk:Threshold of originality

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feist v. Rural doesn't appear to support Freddie Mac's copyright claim. clpo13_(talk) 20:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For more context, see the US copyright office's circular on compilation copyright. I'm inclined to agree on this point, though I'd prefer to move cautiously given Freddie Mac's unambiguously worded copyright claim. Wikiacc (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Data can't be under a copyright, only rendering can. --Yann (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright claim is somewhat dubious to begin with -- if it's a single data point, it's hard to see how creativity entered into it. There can be copyright on the selection and arrangement of data, so choosing a particular set of data points, especially along with their labels, could possibly be copyrighted. But even assuming it is copyrighted, the terms of use does say: Series with the following copyright labels—Public Domain: Citation requested and Copyrighted: Citation required—may be used for internal commercial uses and may be displayed in textbooks, newsletters, or reports to clients provided that appropriate attribution is given to FRED as well as the original source of the data. So, they lump "Copyrighted: Citation required" along with "Public Domain: Citation requested" in terms of similar permissions -- other than the citation being required instead of requested (which is a permissible restriction) they are the same. There is a third category where separate permission is required. The series in question is marked "Copyrighted: Citation required", so it would seem to be in the same bucket as ones marked "public domain". They do seem to claim that some other commercial uses require permission, but they seem to also require that of the public domain category data, which is nonsensical, though I guess could be enforced if it truly is copyrighted. On the other hand, they do put some restrictions on their generated charts, such as not being allowed to change the labels. That seems more designed at not changing the chart to misrepresent the data, but it is quite debatable if it runs over the "non-free" line if they are using copyright to enforce it -- and even if the raw data is not copyrightable, the generated chart *might* be, and if so would be subject to those restrictions. But that is borderline too, as it's a pretty basic line graph. There are some uneasy questions here, but it sure does seem as though the terms of use are being somewhat aggressive about claiming rights over stuff which is apparently in the public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Bobby Glushko communications here:

Commons talk:Threshold of originality#Bobby Glushko communications --Timeshifter (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per above. Data itself cannot be copyrighted. Just the display of that data. This is a basic chart. {{PD-chart}}. --Majora (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]