Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 August 7

< August 6	August 8 >

August 7[edit]

File:CIM general vertical blue copy.jpg[edit]

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 w/ license as updated. Skier Dude (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely to be a copyrighted image, considering the program is a conglomerate of educational institutions. A very similar image can be found at http://construction.asu.edu/cim/ — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely non-free. I changed it into a fair use claim, as it is a standard use of a logo. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (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.

File:Tom Felton.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a crop of this, and editor has a history of bad uploads. ÷seresin 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yeah, pretty obvious copyvio. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:26, 7 August 2009 (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.

File:Le mangeur au chandail raye autoportrait 1940.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Hugo died in 1984, no evidence of copyright release. B (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably non-free and not valid for fair use. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2009 (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.

File:Huy-ValleedelaMeuse-1941-oiloncanvas.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Hugo died in 1984, no evidence of copyright release. B (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably non-free and not valid for fair use. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2009 (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.

File:Cameron smith playing for storm.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no source, no metadata, appears to be on-field professional shot Skier Dude (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2009 (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.

File:IMG_MONT_0686.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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. Amalthea 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tineye match - http://www.montalcinohotel.it/images/strade.jpg - No indication of permssion or 'free license' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The file we're hosting is (obviously) much higher resolution and cropped wider than the image you linked. It's possible they're from the same source image but also possible that the hotel swiped it from us. Powers ^T 13:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably free, per LtPowers. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the 2 images below, this user's contribs have compatible metadata. ∙ AJCham talk 08:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I took this picture in 2006 when I was in Montalcino. I released it to the public domain and uploaded it to Wikipedia. Let me know what the problem is with it being used here and I will gladly do what I can to correct it or clarify the situation. Ee60640 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2009 (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.

File:IMG_0684.JPG[edit]

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: withdrawn Skier Dude (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refferal based on finding other contribs of this user were not PD-Self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which other contribs? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the image below, this user's contribs have compatible metadata. ∙ AJCham talk 08:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Nom withdrawn, Looks like this one can be kept :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2009 (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.

File:IMG_Navona0166.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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. Amalthea 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tineye match - http://www.traveler2.com/Navona2.jpg- Possible reuse of enwiki image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your link isn't working for me -- the site seems to be gone. Powers ^T 13:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the site appears to be gone. However, I have made two observations:

From the TinEye result, the suspected source image was only 450×338px. The image on enwiki is 2502×1837px, so www.traveler2.com/Navona2.jpg could not have been the source.
The image's metadata matches the other images, some of which are completely unrelated, that this user has uploaded as self-made.

∙ AJCham talk 08:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by what exactly the problem is with this image. I took the image and I uploaded it. I thought by indicating I was willing to release it to the public domain it could be used. Please let me know what else I need to do for this to be appropriate. Ee60640 (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2009 (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.

File:Abilene Aerial.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source URL: http://www.whitesphotography.com/whitesphotography/Aerial.htm

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.

File:Censored Winnie the Pooh gift wrapper.jpg.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 13:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wrapping paper shows copyrighted character designs, making it a derivative work. Powers ^T 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note discussion at User talk:Momokau#Possibly unfree File:Censored Winnie the Pooh gift wrapper.jpg.JPG, which is where the uploader chose to respond. Powers ^T 14:04, 9 August 2009 (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.

File:Meredith Vieira.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious copyvio, taken from Flickr. Gage (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from Flickr WITH PERMISSION from photographer. Want proof? I have proof. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you will have to have the photographer/copyright-holder send an email, per the instructions at WP:COPYREQ. Currently, the image at Flickr is "© All rights reserved", and is thus unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. ∙ AJCham talk 08:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of this picture and I gave my FULL PERMISSION for it to be used! Meredith vieira fan (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2009 (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.

File:Go Yugo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image is claimed to be in the public domain with the {{PD-Pre1978}} template. As the cars were first produced in 1978 (mass production started in 1980) and Zastava (GB) Ltd appears to have been established in 1980, it's unlikely that the promotional leaflet would have been published before 1978. snigbrook (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user who uploaded it tagged it with a non-free rationale but another user changed it to public domain, so maybe it should be tagged as fair use, although I don't know whether it would be permitted as there is no mention of its relevance in any of the articles it is used in. snigbrook (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (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.

File:Patch Funeral1.JPG[edit]

The source URL is given but there is no indication in the source that the files are released under any sort of free licence. Simple Bob (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He said it in pm. I just asked him to post it in the topic, so this small problem will be solved soon. Paulus Gun (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved Paulus Gun (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the problem solved? I can see permission in the thread, but what licence are they shared under? --Simple Bob (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He already stated that he gives permission to use it without any problems, so what else do you want him to say? You're going a bit over the top now. Paulus Gun (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going over the top, the licence is important. Are the images being released with no restrictions whatsoever on re-use (including commercial), or is attribution required? Would this person (you aren't the photographer) be happy if his photo popped up in a newspaper or magazine? That's what would happen if it were released under a completely unrestricted licence. All the thread says is that he is happy for you to re-use the photos, but there is no information on how they can be used and for what purpose, that's why I'm "going a bit over the top". --Simple Bob (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the thread he says he gives full permission to use it for any purpose. Is it ok now? Paulus Gun (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paulus Gun, according to the thread he gives permission for the images to "be used for any purpose in conjunction with articles on Harry Patch". Unfortunately, that is not sufficient - images used on Wikipedia must be free images. That means usable for any purpose whatsoever, and the condition above prevents that. If you want the images to stay, you will have to inform the author of exactly what rights you are requesting, and see if he is happy with them. You may wish to refer him to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ . ∙ AJCham talk 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He now states that it can be used FOR ANY PURPOSE. Is this ok? Or is there still a problem? Paulus Gun (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone able to advise on exactly which licence should be applied to these two images now? --Simple Bob (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking the thread (assuming Paulus Gun's statement to be correct)... I'm not sure we have the right template. On Commons, it would be Commons:Template:Copyrighted free use. We have some similar ones here but they all place conditions on it. I also think some sort of semi-permanent record of the file's release must be kept. Best to ask on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Powers ^T 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patch funeral2.JPG[edit]

The source quoted does not indicate that the file is released under any sort of free licence. Simple Bob (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. Paulus Gun (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the problem solved? I can see permission in the thread, but what licence are they shared under? --Simple Bob (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miss World 2008.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 13:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See AN post for details. Likely non-free but I can't find this exact image on the Miss World website. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2009 (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.