Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 March 26
March 26
[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.
Already tagged non-free, out of scope. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
book cover, most likely uploader is not the (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 00:25, 26 March 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⚡ 18:36, 10 April 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 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⚡ 02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be newspaper (book?) scan - thus uploader not the (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 00:27, 26 March 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the constituent images in this collage are not free. Uploader does not hold the rights to the constituent images, so can't release it under GFDL. Ragib (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to add that the uploader has a long history of uploading copyvio images, and doesn't seem to have any respect or understanding of copyright issues. --Ragib (talk) 18:25, 2 April 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 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⚡ 02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader claims to be the copyright holder. The image may be either public domain being old, or the company that used the image may still hold the copyright. The image's page does not state when it was created or when it was used. Rockfang (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Either way, I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder.--Rockfang (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image was from a publication which was published by the family company. There is no copyright statement on it. Johnkendall1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above comment was from me. BTW the company no longer exists. Johnkendall1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 25 May 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: change licensing information to non-free, non-free tag already applied. — neuro(talk)(review) 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you can't trademark letters, but I'm not certain that applies here. Worth a review, if nothing else. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 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 Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viva Films is the likely owner of the image, unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. ∗ \ / (⁂) 07:16, 26 March 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 Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on users previous uploads, I am not 100% certain whether the claim of copyright ownership is valid. ∗ \ / (⁂) 07:57, 26 March 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 Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artefacts indicate that this has been taken from a video source, most likely from the soap itself, a non-free one. — neuro(talk)(review) 08:45, 26 March 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 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⚡ 02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of CC at source. — neuro(talk)(review) 09:41, 26 March 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 Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on users previous uploads, I am not 100% certain whether the claim of copyright ownership is valid. ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:41, 26 March 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 Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artifacts indicate image was likely taken from a TV show ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the image online at [1] - don't know where the original is, but that image is labelled "pinoybiscuits.blogspot.com", and the image uploaded here has had the text obscured. Hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:34, 26 March 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 Bjweeks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source states "Copyright 2002 Animo Magazine. All Rights Reserved" — neuro(talk)(review) 09:43, 26 March 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. — neuro(talk)(review) 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant copyvio, [2] [3] — neuro(talk)(review) 10:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. my bad. i request delete it.[4] Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 10:24, 26 March 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly unfree pamphlet. — neuro(talk)(review) 10:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i scanned this image from hyundai's official pamphlet. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it yours to relicense. — neuro(talk)(review) 11:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious coypvio. Delete --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doubt that it is user's "own work", as stated. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 05:19, 9 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Website states "©Copyright Greynium Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd" — neuro(talk)(review) 13:09, 26 March 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 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⚡ 02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from the website [5], but no evidence of release under the license indicated or evidence of ownership by the uploader --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was given permission by Charlotte Laws' office to post the photo on Wikipedia. You can contact her office to verify permission or I could ask them for an email or letter to this effect if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaggybucket (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 May 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free, from 'Fars News Agency'. — neuro(talk)(review) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a obvious copyright violation. The Fars News Agency name on images itself makes this certain. Aramgar (talk) 23:28, 26 March 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 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⚡ 02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted content is clearly not de minimis - the image is non-free as such. — neuro(talk)(review) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are lots of images of consumer products. I don't understand what the issue is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See [6] for example. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I may nominate them as being unfree if this goes through. The subject of the image is copyrighted, thus just like any person claiming copyright on a picture PD painting is liable to be laughed out of court when push comes to shove, a picture of a copyrighted design is not enough of a derivative to allow for relicensing. — neuro(talk)(review) 18:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're confusing an image of a product with a true copyright violation which would involve duplicating the product. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think neuro is confusing anything. His comments are spot on. That said, common practice around here has been that images of products where the product packaging contains a logo are acceptable as freely licensed images. This isn't spelled out in any guideline or policy that I'm aware of, and perhaps it's time to change that practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that discussion should take place at the Village Pump or somewhere else that will attract broad community input. Not by trying to delete a random image uploaded by a good faith editor that is consistent with existing practices. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never accused you of bad faith, and I don't think the upload was in bad faith. I don't see why this particular issue should go to VP (at the moment, I have only nominated this image, and consensus is already supposed to be being established here, so I don't see the need to take it over there), but I will have no objections if you feel it needs such input. — neuro(talk)(review) 00:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're confusing an image of a product with a true copyright violation which would involve duplicating the product. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I may nominate them as being unfree if this goes through. The subject of the image is copyrighted, thus just like any person claiming copyright on a picture PD painting is liable to be laughed out of court when push comes to shove, a picture of a copyrighted design is not enough of a derivative to allow for relicensing. — neuro(talk)(review) 18:05, 26 March 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the source is probably not free Hidro (talk) 20:35, 26 March 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.