Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 December 24
December 24
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be pd-self but I doubt that's true if it's concept art for a video game. Otherwise, it could be a hoax image. Either way, it should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE license is being questioned. Jusjih (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If you look through the specific credits page, certain images are attributed to various sources. Trillium was not among those cited, and thus I think it can be inferred that this was indeed a product of the US Government. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image kept per IronGargoyle -Nv8200p talk 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as I9 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image is tagged as "All rights reserved", not CC-BY-3.0 as the uploader claims. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep; for now-FASTILY (TALK) 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader is not the creator of each of these images. Even though he put the collage together, the image is not his since the parts are not his either. Thus the license is wrong (the uploader is not the owner of this image) and the image delete. — KabuliTajik (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Five of the six images in the collage are Public Domain as asserted by commons that keeps them. The sixth image of Halide Edip Adıvar is almost certainly a public domain as well but since there are doubt and the image was deleted I have removed it from the collage. Now the collage is based on five public domain images and I guess there is no problem with the copyright status Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The obvious solution would be for the creator of the image to provide links or other evidence that the component images used to create it are indeed in the public domain. Until that's done it's not reasonable for Wikipedia to simply take someone's word for it. -- Hux (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept. All images in the collage are documented as being free images. However, I have nominated Image:Soprano Gencer.jpg at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_February_4#Image:Soprano_Gencer.jpg because I do not believe the uploader is the copyright holder and has any right to release the image to the public domain. -Nv8200p talk
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of release of rights at source website, appears to be a copyrighted publicity still ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright notice asserts that permission has been given to use the image provided that attribution is also given, plus there's a link to the original. However, in the first place there's no proof at the given link or anywhere else I can find that such permission has been given. And in the second place, the original image (here) is not the same as the one on Wikipedia: it is clearly watermarked. I'd say that chances are high that the uploader removed the watermark and falsely asserted permission to use the work. -- Hux (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No information available on source photo. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are fraternal twin who look really alike. In this photo, they wear both different make up , but they are more similar without make up. Ashley is on the left and Mk on the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Derivative work: significant creative change? Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doubtful, the creative change amounts to selective cropping. The idea behind the collage is interesting. It shouldn't be too tough to create a version based on a free license photo. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look original —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.26.235 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo should stay. It looks original. --JYoung3 (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No copyright holder or sourcing; delete. I have tagged as such. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear derivative work based on a copyrighted image. Should be deleted ASAP. -- Hux (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How did you arrive at the conclusion that the source photo was copyrighted? I clearly stated that I do not know who the photographer is. And regardless of the status of the source image, the image that I posted was offered by me, its creator with a free license (FAL). The modification was not merely selective cropping, like Anetode asserts above. It required cropping, scaling and pasting. How much to scale and where to paste were my creative decisions. And the very concept of the image I posted required a significant amount of original creativity. I have never seen a photo of two different people composited in symmetric halves so that they appear to be one and the same person. I don't know how people here feel that they can overlook this originality and choose to delete my image. My reason for expressing desire to identify the photographer was to cite credit where credit is due. That photographer produced the source image. My raw materials. If an author of a book cites an acknowledgment that the current book could not have been written without a previous text having been done, it is NOT grounds for destroying the present book because you find exact quotes of that first author being cited. Vybr8 (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Apparently I had a misunderstanding about the "source" question. I was not clear enough that I was the creator of the image. I fixed this problem. Please let me know if you need any other info or action from me. Thanks, especially to pd_THOR for the explanation you posted on my usertalk page. Vybr8 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted. This is a derivative of two images whose copyright status is unknown. -Nv8200p talk 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as I4 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no source and it is very unlikely that it is GFDL. — Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This picture rocks! I think it should stay on here FOREVER! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheryl Farsque (talk • contribs) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No licensing information. Almost certainly non-free image. Delete. -- Hux (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Requested for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but user who uploaded claims that contacted the author which agreed to license under cc-by-sa-2.5 Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 15:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'm right in saying that if an editor claims to have received permission to use the image under a free license, evidence of that must be emailed to Wikipedia. Otherwise, anyone could just falsely claim that the owner had given such permission. -- Hux (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted. No permission from author supplied -Nv8200p talk 04:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No source. Image unlikely to be GFDL. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a formal image created by some official agency, no explanation as to how the uploader is the copyright holder. Corvus cornixtalk 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Originally listed at WP:CP under title "covers are copyrighted". This is a gray area, IMO, as this appears to involve some artwork on the part of the owner. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be okay if it was re-tagged as fair use, instead of pd-self. --Icarus (Hi!) 09:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally speaking, the use of copyrighted book cover images is limited to articles about the book, for illustration purposes only. Self-made images like this cross the line into infringing territory, AFAIK, since they're basically derivative works that are a) not essential in any article, and b) completely based on existing copyrighted works. Pity though, because it looks nice. :) -- Hux (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.