Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 1
July 1
[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: Delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 issues here: The actual source page, http://www.flickr.com/photos/voteanniphotos/2983626113/ has this image listed as copyrighted. Second, the Summary says the file is ok per the permission stated at http://www.flickr.com/people/voteanniphotos/ however that is incorrect. The permission stated there is BY-NC-ND which is not allowed on Wikipedia or Commons as a free image. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's non-free. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 1 July 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.
- 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⚡ 00:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reason Definingwisdom (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the logo for the website (http://wisdomresearch.org/). I am one of the webmasters for this site. We want to promote our site as much as possible and we receive a lot of referals from wikipedia. We wanted to include our logo on this page. What do I need to do to keep this image or similar images up on this page?
- 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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Listing the image for deletion is probably not the way to do it. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 4 July 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.
- 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reason Definingwisdom (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the logo for the website (http://scienceofvirtues.org/). I am one of the webmasters for this site. We want to promote our site as much as possible and we receive a lot of referals from wikipedia. We wanted to include our logo on this page. What do I need to do to keep this image or similar images up on this page?
- 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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:35, 2 July 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.
- 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source and no evidence of permission. Ecosse99 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 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.
- 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source and no evidence of permission. Ecosse99 (talk) 06:12, 1 July 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.
- 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source and no evidence of permission. Ecosse99 (talk) 06:24, 1 July 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.
- 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: Delete –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader claims rights to a book cover by virtue of owning a copy of the book; obviously, this is in error. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:25, 1 July 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.
- 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: Delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PD-release claimed, but no evidence is given. This is a news photo from the 1930s. There's no info on the copyright holder or date of publication, so we can't know if it's copyrighted or not. I searched online, but found no additional information. (And the claim "Also free for use from government funded taxpayer museum" is spurious). – Quadell (talk) 12:39, 1 July 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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PUI re-list - Road sign design , France does not have FOP Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 1 July 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.
- 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 Conscious (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web-res pro photo of footballer, no source or author specified – Quadell (talk) 14:50, 1 July 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.
- 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: Delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source specified, and I don't believe the uploader created this UN image – Quadell (talk) 14:53, 1 July 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.
- 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 Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a professional photo of a celeb, no source or author info – Quadell (talk) 14:54, 1 July 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.
- 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 Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This unused image has a copyright notice without any permission from Pakistan People's Party just claim by uploader ww2censor (talk) 16:23, 1 July 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.
- 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 Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This unused image has a copyright notice without any permission from Pakistan People's Party just claim by uploader. ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 1 July 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.
- 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 Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Image is claimed to be freely licenced by uploader but is unused. The image is likely copyright as are other images by the same uploader. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 1 July 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.
- 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 Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Image is claimed to be freely licenced by uploader but is unused. The image is likely copyright as are other images by the same uploader. ww2censor (talk) 16:30, 1 July 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.
- 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 Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This unused image has a copyright notice without any permission from Pakistan People's Party just claim by uploader. ww2censor (talk) 16:32, 1 July 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.
- 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 Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This unused image has a copyright notice without any permission from Pakistan People's Party just claim by uploader. ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 1 July 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.
- 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: Delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "image owned by Arkansas Senate", then I doubt the uploader has the right to release it under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 1 July 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.
- 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: Delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: obviously non-free orphan is a copyrighted professional promotional image found on many sites by tineye. ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 1 July 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.
- 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: Delete. Image's licensing was "released for Wikipedia use and no other." (ESkog)(Talk) 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed released into the public domain, but file is taken from a commercial website http://www.grasshoppermower.com/images/Contractor_Diesel_700.jpg Triwbe (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File released into public domain by company. Company released photos into public domain via press releases and personal use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melovely007 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 9 July 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.
- 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: Delete as above. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probable source is http://www.grasshoppermower.com/images/mid_duramax_4x1.jpg Triwbe (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Safe for work, despite the title. – Quadell (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 9 July 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.
- 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: Delete per Quadell. "Unknown" in copyright law doesn't mean we don't know, it means the potential infringer - in this case, the uploader - could not reasonably determine the creator. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undated photo, photographer unknown, in the UK copyright lasts 70 years pma – Quadell (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Alice Hargreaves died in 1932 so the photo dates from before then. The photographer is unknown so the image is copyright free under the UK's copyright laws, i.e. the photograph is more than 70 years old. Jack1956 (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, as the photographer is unknown. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "pma" means "after the death of the author". If the photographer died in 1939 or before, then the image is PD. If the photographer died afterwards, it's still under copyright. Without knowing who the photographer is, we can't know if it's copyrighted or not. – Quadell (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the tag please. If the photographer is unknown, the copyright expires 70 years after creation. I am aware of the problems associated with trying to prove that a photographer is unknown. However, given that the image comes from Jack1956's personal collection (and I see no reason to doubt this claim), I would assume that he is better aware of the provenance of the image and that there can be no way to plausibly determine its creator. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a couple problems with that. First off, Jack1956 says that the image comes from his "personal collection", though it's not clear what that means. As mentioned at File talk:Alicehargreaves.jpg, the image is clearly half-toned, which would indicate publishing in a book or magazine... but there's no credit given. Secondly, "unknown" is problematic, as you point out. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says "the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry". If this is a photo in a drawer where no one remember who took it, then that's unknown. But if it was published in a book (as appears likely), and the photographer was credited there, then just because you and I don't happen to know who the author is doesn't make the author "unknown". Thirdly, even if it turns out that the author is "unknown", we still don't know when this photograph was first published. Photographs with "unknown" creators don't go into the public domain in the UK until 2039, if the photos were never published. If they were published, they don't go into the public domain until 70 years after the date of publication. Was this image published before 1939? Neither of us knows, and so neither of us knows if it's PD or not. (See this and this for further info.) – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi all, in trying to shed a little light on this, the original image is a not very good quality photograph that has come down through my family to me. The image in the article is a scan that I made of that photograph. My understanding is that the photograph was taken in 1932 at one of the various events staged to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Charles Dodgson. I do not know who took the photograph...it may have been a family member and it may not. Jack1956 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 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.