The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

File:Francis-Scott-Key-Bridge-Collapse.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dellwood546 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This bridge collapsed in the middle of a major metropolitan area, someone could go out right now and take a free image of the aftermath, so this particular screenshot is not irreplaceable. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Fair use claim is invalid. Bedivere ( talk) 13:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Keep and move to Commons per below. -- Bedivere ( talk) 15:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, free images likely to come within hours Personisinsterest ( talk) 14:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - CCTV footage, public domain due to no human input/author. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 15:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This is CCTV? If that's true, I would say to reupload as a free file. Personisinsterest ( talk) 15:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

StreamTime LIVE uses PTZ cameras, and they actively point and zoom them at various targets, mostly to follow ships going in and out of the port. These aren't fixed CCTV cameras. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 16:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This is true, however it is still from a general 24/7 livesstream of the bridge. Dellwood546 ( talk) 16:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

They are claiming that they own the copyright: DUPLICATION OF OUR FOOTAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION. This work is copyrighted. Unauthorized use of this work without permission constitutes a violation of US Copyright Law. Use of this work is available for licensing under fair and reasonable terms. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That has absolutely not been legally established within the United States. In some countries, maybe. In the US, there is no such clear legal precedent. We need to err on the side of caution. The original source itself [1] claims that their videos are copyrighted. -- Veggies ( talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep/upload full resolution/move to commons - CCTV or 24/7 webcam footage does not contain any original authorship which could be protected by copyright, see c:Template:PD-automated. -- TheImaCow ( talk) 16:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ TheImaCow c:Template:PD-automated only applies to images from "a completely automated system", so this image would not qualify since it is from a camera remotely steered by humans. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 16:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it's highly unlikely that someone manually steered the camera to the bridge the moment before the impact, and even if someone did: Copyright claims by that person on the footage would be absurd. They don't own the camera, they didn't install the camera, they probably could not have expected the accident -> clicking a button to move a webcam is not "original authorship" IMO. -- TheImaCow ( talk) 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The cameras are controlled by StreamTime LIVE, who also own and installed the cameras. They're not controlled by random people on the Internet. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 17:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, as per the automated CCTV justification above. The C of E God Save the King! ( talk) 16:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep As per the automated CCTV justification above. Additionally, the image is irreplaceable as it shows the collapse as it happened, not the aftermath. There are very few photos of the event as it had occurred. Dellwood546 ( talk) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete and replace with a Commons upload of the CCTV video linked in the {{ External media}} template in the body, similar to what was done at 2020 Nashville bombing. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 17:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I have uploaded the video to Commons as File:CCTV video of Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse.webm and added it to the article. — Goszei ( talk) 18:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CCTV_video_of_Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse.webm -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 17:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep/reupload as Commons file as per the automated CCTV discussion above. Also agree with Dellwood that this image of the bridge is irreplaceable and there is likely no comparable image PalauanLibertarian ^🗣️ 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment This YouTube video seems to be the same as the one from the screencap, although it seems much more blue rather than the yellowish tint in the screencap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULzspJZuf8 -- Note the description: "The StreamTime LIVE camera captured the collapse. ... DUPLICATION OF OUR FOOTAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION." So... can we really just reupload the entire CCTV stream as a commons file under fair use? -- Corporal ( talk) 18:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This seems like an example of copyfraud. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No, uploading "fair use" or other forms of copyrighted media (except {{ Copyrighted free use}}) is unacceptable. I'd better supporting @ JohnCWiesenthal's explaination because it's an automatic camera (CCTV) footage and claim copyright on it has already unacceptable. Kys5g ^talk! 13:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete - The principle of copyright-free CCTV videos has never been legally established within the United States. The original source, StreamTime Live, explicitly says that Duplication or distribution of our videos is strictly prohibited without permission. This work is copyrighted. Unauthorized use of this work without permission constitutes a violation of US Copyright Law. Use of this work is available for licensing under fair and reasonable terms. [2] I strongly urge that admins err on the side of caution here. -- Veggies ( talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete: I concur with @ Veggies, in that the image was taken from a source claiming copyright ownership and where no legal precedent exists in US copyright law to allow for re-licensing as Public Domain. By virtue of these two factors, the file in question more than likely meets criterion WP:F7 (per subsections b and c) for WP:SPEEDY, as this seems to be a clear-cut case of non-free media taken from a commercial source that is not the subject of sourced critical commentary, as well as the file may also meet criterion WP:F9 as it is also an unambiguous violation of that sources' copyright. Secondly, (and thanks to @ Goszei for doing this), this file is now redundant to a similar Commons upload, so it more than likely meets criterion WP:F8 for WP:SPEEDY as well. Lastly (and this only applies if the file is somehow proven not to qualify for speedy deletion), I also concur with the nominator that the file in question cannot be kept by virtue of fair-use, as the possibility that the collapsed bridge could still be photographed (and the existence of free media which depicts that) would cause it to fail WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability). FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Section B and C of criterion F7 may be better. It's copyfraud to do so and the event depicted was happened recently. So in my opinion, anyone can take an image about that incident (or its aftermath) and license it under a free license. Kys5g ^talk! 13:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Kys5g Upon further review, I concur that those sections of crtierion F7 are a far better rationale for deletion of this video file. As such, I have amended my rationale above. Thank you for your clarification. FHSIG13 ^TALK 21:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.