Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 13

File:Sarah Record Breaker16.JPG

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 Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarah Record Breaker16.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Possible DVD or TV screencap released under an improper license. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is taken by me from the "Record Breaker" concert as you can see. The accusation is funny because it is impossible that the image is from the DVD because until now the DVD is not released, and it means that this image is from MY CAMERA. Since it is from ME and I wrote EVERYTHING that is needed, then what on earth should I do now? Pls Answer.--White paladin888 (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence of being from a DVD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:55, 19 February 2010 (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:Black Dahlia.jpg

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Dahlia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Clearly a misuse of PD-self. Doubtful that it is public domain in any event. —Chowbok ☠ 06:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I did not upload the original of this image, all I did was crop it differently. It was uploaded and licensed by Jennavecia, who is still active on Wikipedia and proper notice should be given to her. Please notify the proper uploader regarding this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified her at the same time I notified you.—Chowbok ☠ 06:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Is it true that U.S. mugshots are in the public domain? If this was cropped from a mug shot, and mug shots are in the public domain (Mug shots of people of the United States) could the problem be fixed by correcting the tag for both the original image, and this cropped version? The PD-self tag has obviously been misused but it may not mean that the images can't be retained. Rossrs (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Wow, Chowbok. Even the slightest bit of effort in this case would have saved a lot of people time. First of all, why would you tag a derivative work and not the original, when the original is tagged PD, if you don't think the image is PD? This image is a derivative of a United States mugshot, which is in the public domain. ~~So, not only did you not bother to notify the uploader of this image (me) when you nominated it for deletion, but y~~You didn't even bother to look at the image it was created from, as listed in the information section on the image page, to see that the original is licensed in the public domain. Put greater effort in when you're attempting to remove valuable content from the encyclopedia. Lara 15:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the original of this crop was uploaded by the owner under a public domain license. I have no reason to doubt that the uploader likely obtained the original through some means and there is no reason to delete this. It is of historical significance in any case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but fix the tag. PD-"whatever" may be right, but PD-self is wrong. Rossrs (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lara's explanation which makes sense to me. The image is valuable to the article and I have no reasons to doubt the uploader either. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "possibly" is not "absolutely", I agree with Rossrs and the others that the tag is the issue - not the mug shot, which would have been taken at the public expense and therefore, in the Public Domain.Victor9876 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact regs for mugshots, but the contention that any photograph taken at public expense is public domain is not accurate. That applies only to works of the U.S. federal government, state or local governments still have the option to retain copyright over their works. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it is "Fair Use" as described in the following link. The educational value with the thumbnail size print used only for identifying the subject would withstand the doctrine of "Fair Use". [[1]Victor9876 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only point was that it is not automatically public domain, fair use is separate issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Image should be kept. Fix the tag; there's no real issue after that that I can see... Doc9871 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2010 (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:Gilflo Logo.jpg

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.

Re-licensed as a non-free logo. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gilflo Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Summary claims that this image was created by InnoStudios. No indication that the uploader created the logo or has the right to release it under Creative Commons. — ξ ^xplicit 06:38, 13 February 2010 (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:CBennett-ArlingtonCemetery.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CBennett-ArlingtonCemetery.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Released under GFDL and CCA by the uploader but noted as fair use because it is from Arlington National Cemetery. Sourced from http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ which is an unofficial non-government site. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the website is a private site, the photo itself is obviously old and probably is an official government photo. However since the site does have a copyright notice on it's main page that kind of clouds the issue. It's odd that they attribute most of the rest of their content but not this photo. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using the "email the webmaster" function here [2], but it kept trying to open mu operating systems built-in email client, which I don't like to use. If we could get the webmaster to send an email indicating where he got this photo, it would go a long way towards resolving this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the Library of Congress and NARA, but have not found anything. It is probably a government photo, but it can't be proved without a source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:17, 16 February 2010 (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:Assembled 7.62 RK 95 TP.jpg

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; the file is tagged as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assembled 7.62 RK 95 TP.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Template for files from FDF was deleted from Commons. Derivative works or commercial use possibly not allowed. A333 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License changed accordingly. Non-free media use rationale for 7.62 RK 95 TP provided.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2010 (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 ⚡ 16:11, 13 February 2010 (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:Finnish NBG Officer.jpg

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; the file is tagged as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Finnish NBG Officer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Template for files from FDF was deleted from Commons. Derivative works or commercial use possibly not allowed. A333 (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License changed accordingly. Non-free media use rationale for Finnish NBG Officer provided.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2010 (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 ⚡ 16:11, 13 February 2010 (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:7.62 TKIV 85.jpeg

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; the file is tagged as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:7.62 TKIV 85.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Template for files from FDF was deleted from Commons. Derivative works or commercial use possibly not allowed. A333 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License changed accordingly. Non-free media use rationale for 7.62 Tkiv 85 provided.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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 ⚡ 16:11, 13 February 2010 (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:7.62 TKIV 85-3.jpeg

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; the file is tagged as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:7.62 TKIV 85-3.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Template for files from FDF was deleted from Commons. Derivative works or commercial use possibly not allowed. A333 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License changed accordingly. Non-free media use rationale for 7.62 Tkiv 85 provided.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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 ⚡ 16:11, 13 February 2010 (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:DundalkJersey 405.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DundalkJersey 405.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Image is most likely from an on-line catalogue judging by the manikin the shirt is on. User has a history of "possible unfree" images that have been previously deleted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2010 (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:7.62 TKIV 85-2.jpeg

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; the file is tagged as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:7.62 TKIV 85-2.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Template for files from FDF was deleted from Commons. Derivative works or commercial use possibly not allowed. A333 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License changed accordingly. Non-free media use rationale for 7.62 Tkiv 85 provided.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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 ⚡ 16:11, 13 February 2010 (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:File name.ext

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 ⚡ 16:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs).

License changed and Non-free media use rationale for 7.62 Tkiv 85 provided Francis Flinch (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (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:File name.ext

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 ⚡ 16:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs).

License changed. Non-free media use rationale for 7.62 Tkiv 85 provided. Francis Flinch (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2010 (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:Elchibey1.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elchibey1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No licensing of any kind attached to this file, source unclear. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2010 (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:Big Red Machine Reds.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Big Red Machine Reds.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

While the license on Flickr is an acceptable one I suspect the Flickr user doesn't actually have the right to release this one. It's a photo of a mosaic in the Great American Ballpark, so basically it's a derivative work of a 2D work of art that I assume is still under copyright considering the ballpark was built less than 10 years ago. Sherool (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. The mosaic is in the style of the ones that used to grace Union terminal, but obviously it's not one of those. In any event, I think you're right, this is a representation of an original work of art and copyright can't be released by those who didn't own that copyright to begin with. It might be possible to re-tag it with some sort of fair-use license though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the image's license to one that may be more appropriate, but since this is now on commons, it will probably be deleted from en.Wikipedia anyway, and it will be commons' problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. You can't delete something because it is on Commons (WP:CSD#F8) unless the license is "(...) undoubtedly accepted at Commons.". The version on Commons have already been deleted on my request there so it's not "their problem" anymore. If we all agree that it's non-free though I guess I'll just tag it for speedy deletion instead for lacking a suitable non-free use rationale though. --Sherool (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2010 (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 ⚡ 22:49, 22 February 2010 (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.