Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 October 22
| < October 21 | October 23 > |
|---|
October 22
[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.
keep license template was appropriate. Skier Dude ► 03:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe reproduction of government identification is legal (or appropriate). HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly the work of NASA, so this is in the public domain. We're not concerned about anything other than copyright here. On the point of legality, it is perfectly legal. What would be illegal would be to use the image for a fraudulent purpose. Based on the resolution of this image, it would be impossible to make a convincing fake ID. We have plenty of images of U.S. currency, which are legal as long as they follow U.S. Secret Service guidelines to prevent counterfeiting. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've probably posted this concern in the wrong place -- for that I apologize. Clearly copyright isn't the issue here. I do know of a case where a NASA employee reproduced his badge on a T-Shirt and this was not appreciated by the agency -- I'm not sure (and I don't think you are either) if it was legal. Of course, Wikipedia may not care even if it was illegal. My other concern would be privacy. Do we allow people to put images of other people's identification here? Can I post a picture of your driver's license? HyperCapitalist (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it is an image free of copyright. Any concern about a security badge from over 15 years ago is just silly. Unless someone with bad intentions plans to travel back in time, and gain access to secret NASA Skylab blueprints. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:39, 29 October 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.
keep see above. Skier Dude ► 03:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe reproduction of government identification is legal (or appropriate). HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See comment above. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:41, 29 October 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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A promotional image of the individual, seems unlikely that the uploader owns the copyright to this image. — ξxplicit 05:02, 22 October 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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
school logo - no source, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 06:20, 22 October 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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
school logo - no source, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 06:21, 22 October 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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
school logo - no source, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 06:21, 22 October 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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
school logo - no source, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 06:21, 22 October 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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
school logo - no source, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 06:21, 22 October 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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from focus & resolution appears to be screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 06:46, 22 October 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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from pixelation appears to be screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 06:46, 22 October 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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no source, compilation of images, suspected screenshots Skier Dude (talk) 06:47, 22 October 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: keep. Proper licensing provided. — ξxplicit 06:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
corporate logo - no source, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - added licensing and fair use. -- Banjeboi 18:03, 22 October 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⚡ 03:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- note There's still two problems that I see; 1st, there are now contradicting licenses on the page (either its going to be the free one or non-free one, but not both). 2nd, following the article link, it appears that this isn't the one that they are using - close (gray scale) but they're using black & white now & a quick scan for that image didn't turn up anything. Skier Dude (talk) 00:33, 2 November 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: keep. Proper licensing provided. — ξxplicit 06:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
corporate logo - no source, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, there seems to be three of these? One on commons, the commons one should likely be deleted and this one retained, I've added license and fair use. -- Banjeboi 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- update appears commons one is gone & the software isn't picking up a duplicate here any more. However, source link is still missing & the license is still wrong. This one checks out as being the current one used on the website. Skier Dude (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate at File:CockyBoysLogo.jpg, I suggest deleting this duplicate and leaving this one as is, I removed the common license as inappropriate. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 23 November 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⚡ 21:41, 5 November 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: keep. Proper licensing provided. — ξxplicit 06:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
film logo - no source, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, added licensing ascribed to company property. -- Banjeboi 17:55, 22 October 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⚡ 03:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update There's still two problems that I see; 1st, there are now contradicting licenses on the page (either its going to be the free one or non-free one, but not both). 2nd, following the article link, it appears that this isn't the one that they are using - at least on the splash page... & there's no direct link to where it appears. Skier Dude (talk) 00:49, 2 November 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
web resolution, also uploaded as File:Peter in India.JPG w/ no license information; metadata is inconsistent w/uploader name Skier Dude (talk) 07:19, 22 October 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
television title card, if legit uploader would not be (c) holder; if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 07:38, 22 October 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned school logo, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please help explain what the instructions are for labeling this logo as "given to me by the school"? Thanks! Kathleensullivan (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a note on Kathleen's talk suggesting a fair use rationale. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Permission appears to have been given under an acceptable licence now, I've asked Kathleen to forward the email to [email protected] Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 24 October 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.
Kept as {{PD-textlogo}}. It does look quite complicated but really that's all down to the typeface I think. It is far beyond me, but it seems like something that a competent person could replicate with the right tools. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this logo does consist soley of "typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" that do not qualify for copyright. It appears a very integrated logo, with carefully layered colours in specific widths, with an overlap and border carefully formulated. This should be put under 'fair use'. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 12:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be clear the the outcome of this discussion would not result in deletion (I agree with the comment above that it could be put under fair use). That said, I respectfully disagree with the rest of TreasuryTag's assertions above. This logo is too simple for copyright. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:53, 25 October 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File was originally listed at FFD with a claim of being a copyvio. That sort of discussion is better suited for here at PUI. kmccoy (talk) 12:36, 22 October 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image was listed at FFD without much input. I doubt its copyright status, though, and wanted to get further input here. kmccoy (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's even less input here than at FFD. Almost certainly a copyvio. J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 22 October 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.
Creator's release below, image kept. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image was uploaded with "permission from Mr Jennings" (a blogger (?)), who received it with "no known copyright" from the subject himself, but with an unknown photographer. Now an IP has edited the source and license making an (uncorroborated) claim that it's by some photographer. But there's still no evidence of permission, etc. Not knowing who any of these people are, I'm not sure what to make of it. Also see uploader's note on image talk page. • Anakin (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have written to the photographer, Alan Thomas, credited with the photo, requesting permission to utilize the image and verification that he does, indeed, hold the rights to the photo. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Thomas, an Editor at the University of Chicago Press, has replied in the affirmative. I'm still on the Wikipedia learning curve, and would appreciate direction regarding next appropriate steps. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, it's Alan Thomas here. I am indeed the guy who took this photo, and I'm happy to have it appear here. I have tried to follow the instructions given under the photo ("Create a PUI subsection for discussion," etc.), but don't really understand them and am new to the protocols for posting and crediting images on Wikipedia. My aim was to provide proper attribution to my photo of Allan S. and make it available under a Creative Commons license. If anyone has further instructions for me, please send them via my website, http://www.alan-thomas.com. Thanks. --Alanthom81 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See above.... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:41, 29 October 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 Wknight94 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from website of Toronto Transit Commission - yet uploader claims it as own work Eja2k (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image taken from Toronto Transit Commission website. Please also examine the uploaders history ... on his talk page there are several examples and warnings regarding his abuse of copyright policies. Eja2k (talk) 22:31, 22 October 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.