Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 August 23
August 23
[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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of being under GFDL. --aktsu (t / c) 00:39, 23 August 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 Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of being under GFDL. Source says "copyright © SFUK all rights reserved, please email us for permission to use any info or graphics on this site". --aktsu (t / c) 00:46, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from http://www.ssjstudio.net/page11.htm and no evidence of it being licenced under GFDL. --aktsu (t / c) 00:57, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing ClaudioProductions (talk · contribs) didn't create the logo for the SSJ-gym, so this should probably either be deleted or changed to comply to the fair-use policies for logos. --aktsu (t / c) 02:24, 23 August 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 I6 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine cover appears to only be used as 'filler' in both articles, none makes mention of this specific cover in which it would be required for encyclopaedic content. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 07:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a non-free image; issues regarding its use should be dealt with by way of {{subst:dfu|reason}}. PUI is only for images that are marked as free but may not be. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 12 September 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been created using unfree images collection. OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 08:00, 23 August 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 F5 by Chris G (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot - NOT PD Self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 23 August 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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: kept with license updated Skier Dude (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Screnshot - Not PD Self - Belived uploader has several images with wrong tags Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot - NOT PD Self - Uploader has other images with same issue Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:51, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot - NOT PD Self - uploader has simmilar images :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:52, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Srceenshot - NOT PD Self - (See previous listings- Uploader has many images with this issue) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot - NOT PD Sef Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:54, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(See previous listings) - Same issue Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:55, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot - NOT PD Self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:55, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sceenshot - NOT PD Self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:56, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly derived image - Reffered to PUI for comment Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:01, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Low quality image - looks like possible scan? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image was taken from the band's MySpace page. There is no indication that the image is freely licensed as similar images are often copyrighted. It is worth noting that the band's music has been released freely. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:33, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly non-free, made up of newspaper clippings. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 23 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only source info is "Photo from the French Senate", but even if that is the case I'm pretty sure that doesn't automaticaly mean it's public domain. Sherool (talk) 23:20, 23 August 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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader claims this image is both the work of the U.S. government and published before 1923, but provides no sourcing information on which to verify either of these claims. State of Arizona's archives contain an identical image with a clear claim of copyright.[1] --Allen3 talk 23:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about the U.S. government claim, but the Arizona library claim on the copyright is clearly bogus. The photo is circa 1900 (by their own admission), and they can't identify the original author. Arizona can't just go about acquiring copyrights of anonymous photographers because they happen to be of someone famous in AZ history. The image is almost certainly PD... either by publication date (considering this is a public figure, and the nature of the photo...the image was likely published), or death of the author > 70 years ago is highly likely. The rest is copyright paranoia. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arizona's copyright claim is actually plausible as this image is most likely a previously unpublished archive photo. This is because copyright is based upon date of publication and not date of creation. It is common for personal photographs to sit unpublished in private collections for decades and then be published for the first time after being acquired by a library or similar archive. While I personally do not like how this works, until Congress updates the current copyright laws to better deal with situations like this we are stuck with an unclear copyright status and no way to confirm photographs such as this one are in the public domain. --Allen3 talk 12:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's based on date of publication not on date of creation. I'm saying two things: A: There is no way Arizona could magically acquire the copyright of this image if they don't know who created it and there wasn't some agreement between them and the photographer. B. The probability, given that this is a public figure (and given the style of the image), that the image was left unpublished is very small. Also, even if it WAS unpublished, it still still enters PD 70 years after the death of the author (which considering the age of the photo is extremely likely to have occurred). There is a microscopic chance that this is still copyright, yes. But it is so unlikely that the burden of proof should fall on the other side. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arizona's copyright claim is actually plausible as this image is most likely a previously unpublished archive photo. This is because copyright is based upon date of publication and not date of creation. It is common for personal photographs to sit unpublished in private collections for decades and then be published for the first time after being acquired by a library or similar archive. While I personally do not like how this works, until Congress updates the current copyright laws to better deal with situations like this we are stuck with an unclear copyright status and no way to confirm photographs such as this one are in the public domain. --Allen3 talk 12:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And here is the proof that Arizona is claiming bogus copyrights and the image is indisputably in the public domain: Arizona, Prehistoric, Aboriginal, Pioneer, Modern By James H. McClintock. 1918 [2] p. 357 IronGargoyle (talk) 15:04, 24 August 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 F5 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL Claim but has Fair USE Rationale? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say just remove the GFDL template, using the the school's non-free logo on the article about the school is fairly uncontroversial. --Sherool (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I do that, it's still technically, unsourced... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source of the logo is the organization. That's all you need to say. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:29, 24 August 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only information on the is "university of Georgia", assuming that is the source it still does not explain why the uploader believe this image to be in the public domain, universities generaly does not release photots into the public domain. Sherool (talk) 15:02, 24 August 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.