Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 July 17
July 17
[edit]- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:YousufKarsh1991.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The copyright on this file not expired, it is not public domain. The library says that they own the copyright and "restrictions on reuse: Nil", that refers to the copyright the LAC holds and their ability to give permission, it not means that anyone can copy their content and reuse. To reuse this images you must ask for permission, see the reuse terms of the library: Some of the material you will find on the Library and Archives Canada website is protected by copyright owned by Library and Archives Canada. In such cases, users must obtain written permission from Library and Archives Canada prior to reproducing the material. So they can grant you permission (they have "nil" restrictions) and they will grant you an individual permission including fee for commercial reuse and a strict prohibition of modifications. They however and not give a permission to anyone, see commons:Template_talk:LAC#Copyright status and see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images. Martin H. (talk) 01:30, 17 July 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.
- 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: 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⚡ 06:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs).
- reason Raghuramacharya (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sree yalavarti.Anjaneya shastry is a renowned Vedic Agama Shilpa Shastra pundit,from 1820 - 1900.During those days, The photographs used to be of less quality. So, the old photograph has been photoshoped to give a good shape by the veda pathashala authorities.The photograph, placed on the page, is collected from the veda pathashala, at tenali.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1CrawfordPkwy.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is clearly a screenshot from google maps! Look up the address and see how the image has the same color tone, picture quality, quality of light...plus you can see the freaking white circle in the bottom right! That's a dead giveaway GrapedApe (talk) 14:19, 17 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:NorfolkCityHall.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is clearly a copyvio from Google Maps. The white circle in the bottom is a dead giveaway. GrapedApe (talk) 14:23, 17 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hypertrichosis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The file description says, that this file was created by Micr75 and released into the public domain, this information was never added by the user. Only an IP user added a PD-self and this pd-self was later interpreted by others. Wrong I say, the uploader more appears like a vandal and uploading this "fun" picture. See the edit of 15:45, 16 November 2006, thats vandalism, but not own work. --Martin H. (talk) 17:47, 17 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Goodyear-5067.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Derivative of a Copyrighted Adversting Alx 91 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 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.
- 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 discussion was: delete, erring to the side of caution, as copyright of the images may have not yet expired. — ξxplicit 01:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Do 217 production.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image taken in the 1940s in Germany is unlikely to be the work of the uploader MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This image was taken by me. It is a photograph of a manual picture. I think this is okay. Dapi89 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's needed is what the original source of the picture is. This photo of a photo is a derivative work and the original copyright is still applicable. Unless we know where you got it from we don't know whether the original photo is public domain or still in copyright. If the latter, it may be possible to argue fair use, but for that the source would still be needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the summary. I claim the work to be mine, as it my photo, but the original was found in Griehl's book. It was taken in c. 1940. They are E-1s under production. Dapi89 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 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.
- 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 discussion was: delete, erring to the side of caution, as copyright of the images may have not yet expired. — ξxplicit 01:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Do 217 M1 cockpit.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- image in a 1940s German aircraft manual is unlikely to be the work of the uploader MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This image was taken by me. It is a photograph of another photograph. There is nothing in the wikipedia commons on the aircraft, and I'm sure any uploading of files from the internet is likely to contested, so I chose this option as there was no other way. Dapi89 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a derivative work of the original manual - which may have been the product of Dornier or the German Government - I don't think that German Goverment works are public domain. [1] suggests that anonomous German works would become PD after 70 years so a page from a 1943 manual will not be PD until 2013.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was taken by Dornier. What now? Dapi89 (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a derivative work of the original manual - which may have been the product of Dornier or the German Government - I don't think that German Goverment works are public domain. [1] suggests that anonomous German works would become PD after 70 years so a page from a 1943 manual will not be PD until 2013.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 17 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:970667280l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a logo of an institution, and I doubt the uploader owns its copyright. If he does, he doesn't explain it. Rodhullandemu 22:06, 17 July 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.