Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 7

< June 6	June 8 >

June 7

File:Skipper Stowe.jpg

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: Keep; solution offered, awaiting OTRS permission. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skipper Stowe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The site says "free for publication", but does not specify an actual license. —fetch ·comms 00:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion at File talk:Skipper Stowe.jpg. —Skol fir (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the "free for publication" statement is insufficient. It is true that Wikipedia doesn't require a CC-BY-SA license, just that the image be freely licensed. Wikipedia considers a license to be free if it explicitly allows all of the following, for both the image itself as well as any modified versions based on it: modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. I'm afraid the "free for publication" statement, while arguably a license for redistribution and commerical use, is not a license that explicitly allows modification. This is a common enough misconception that Commons specifically warns about relying on this kind of wording (see commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#Other_free_tags). Even if this were a free license, you've tagged this image with a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} copyright license tag. That is clearly incorrect, there is no indication that this image is available under that CC license. I recommend you follow the steps at WP:PERMISSIONS for requesting permission to use this image. —RP88 ^(talk) 14:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that if I ask for permission from the managers of the source website, they will gladly provide it, as they even have a link to the Wikipedia article about "Reid Stowe" on their website, and should have no problems sharing the two photos used in his article. It should not take me more than a couple of days. -- Skol fir (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Skol fir (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've contacted them, you should follow the rest of the steps at WP:PERMISSIONS. Update the license tag on this image to match the free license they agreed to and forward their declaration of consent to OTRS at permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. When you forward the consent to OTRS make sure to include the URL for the image to which the consent refers. Finally, add Add {{OTRS pending}} to the image description page. That tag adds the image to a category monitored by the folks at OTRS. If they confirm the permissions, they'll update the image description (if they don't can't find the matching e-mail permission, or it is inadequate in some way, they might contact the copyright holder for confirmation, ask you for additional details, or delete the image). —RP88 ^(talk) 15:26, 9 June 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:International_Journal_of_Speech-Language_Pathology_(TASL).jpg

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: keep. File licensed under fair use. — ξ ^xplicit 01:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology (TASL).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Magazine cover - Not self as claimed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PD-ineligible, isn't it? Powers ^T 16:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that journal cover is PD-ineligible -- there is a complicated wave-like pattern incorporated into the blue background. The pattern is hard to see because of the small image size. —RP88 ^(talk) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't that make the pattern de minimis in and of itself? IronGargoyle (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the pattern covers 3/4 of the original journal cover, of which this image is a derivative work. I'm sure the pattern is obvious enough on the original cover. I am not aware of any caselaw for thumbnailing, in of itself, producing a result that is PD ineligible, although in several cases thumbnails have been ruled to be fair use of the copyrighted works from which they are derived. —RP88 ^(talk) 14:25, 8 June 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 ⚡ 11:56, 21 June 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:MaeWest still.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MaeWest still.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

See this discussion. Photographer was George Hurrell, not "Dr. Macro". Studio portrait by a famous photographer. Taken 1933 or 1934, published later, but we don't know when or where. No evidence of having been published without copyright notice. At the utmost, this might perhaps be usable under "fair use", but for a PD claim, we'd need much more and more precise information about the history of this photo. Lupo 13:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we must delete this. hurrellphotos.com are selling this particular image, so we have to assume that if anyone holds copyright, it's them. Their site displays a copyright notice. I disagree that we can make a fair use claim for the image, simply because there are free images at Commons that would also serve to depict West. The quality is not as good, but as long as there is at least one that is satisfactory, we have no justification for using an unfree image for something as generic as an infobox. Rossrs (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Wknight94 ^talk 18:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the Hurrell website, the "original" studio still photo is shown which includes imprinted descriptive details, including photo margins (where copyright marks would have been added,) but without a copyright indicia. This has all the traits of a publicity photo used by actors and studios when replying to fan mail, often autographed. The George Hurrell article also states that pretty much all his star photos were for publicity and "marketing" purposes, not for "art," -- i.e. he was no Ansel Adams. The more comprehensive research into movie stills and PD is here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Note also that the original photo on the Hurrell website says "Mae West in " (other details too small to read) indicating a movie title is included. For better future reference I can upload the uncropped photo. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of looking at details that may or may not be on the photograph, I think the most important thing on the Hurrell website is "© 2002-2007 HurrellPhotos.com. All rights reserved." Even if their claim of copyright is false for this particular photograph, and I'm not saying it is, they are claiming copyright on the material they are selling. "This has all the traits of a publicity photo" reads as an educated guess, and it may be right. Without the Hurrell website it may even be acceptable but it doesn't make their claim of copyright go away. Rossrs (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a copyright notice on the website may be the least significant factor relating to a publicity photo taken about 80 years ago. A copyright notice on a website, even though not necessary to protect a website today, only protects the website, not the individual photos, which need their own copyright — unless this is the first time that photo was ever published, which is not likely. There were also many movie magazines published in those days. Producing celebrity publicity stills was a major industry.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a lot of images were released without copyright, but we don't actually know the terms of original release for this particular image. Looking at the Hurrell website a little closer, the main page states "All images on this website are copyrighted © HurrellPhotos.Com". Whether or not it's true is irrelevant. They are claiming copyright. Rossrs (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical question: If a magazine in 1935 had published a photo, and the magazine, but not the photo, had a copyright notice, would it be considered PD if the magazine did not renew a copyright? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Rossrs. The webpage at Hurrellphoto.com carries a copyright mark for the years © 2002-2007 HurrellPhotos.com. There is no valid way of which I'm aware that we can claim public domain on this photo, just because someone else carries it on his website, it is still a posted copyright violation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:10, 20 June 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:Ringtonegetloose.ogg

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 ⚡ 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ringtonegetloose.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No evidence that this file is within the gift of the uploader to release into the public domain. The same applies to File:Livebigremix.ogg by the same uploader. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 14:33, 7 June 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:Vulcanbarnstar.png

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vulcanbarnstar.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Already deleted at Commons; see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vulcanbarnstar.jpg. The Vulcan IDIC is, I believe, copyrighted and cannot be used in a derivative work that is released into the public domain. Powers ^T 16:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A administrator on commons deleted the image on commons because he was concerned about the possibility of the image being a copyright violation. I asked the administrator to temporarily undelete it so I could move it to wikipedia. Either way, the image is not a copyright violation. A simple circle next to a triangle does not meet the requirements of originality and cannot be copyrighted. If the circle and the triangle had the Vulcan letters engraved with the exact colors as they do in the show, then the image might be a copyright violation. This image has a triangle next to a circle. There are no symbols and the shapes are not colored, they are simple geometric shapes.--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this image is more complex than simply "a circle next to a triangle" and does in fact meet the threshold of originality necessary to be copyrightable. Powers ^T 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image you cited is more complex than a circle next to a triangle, but the file on wikipedia is nothing more than a simple circle next to a triangle. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can't copyright the "idea" of a circle and a triangle in this configuration, only distinct creative implementations. Comparing the original Star Trek prop and the Barnstar image, I would argue that this would likely be OK per Alpha Quadrant. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:49, 22 June 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:Bad Day poster 2010 3c.jpg

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bad Day poster 2010 3c.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

reason this image is non-free Triwbe (talk) 16:13, 7 June 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:Bei_maejor.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bei maejor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Appears to be a promotional photo -- Irn (talk) 17:12, 7 June 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:DSC00223.JPG

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 ⚡ 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC00223.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

I question the claim of PD on this image. The design of the cereal box is copyrighted by Nestle, which they have not released into the PD. (Which is different from, for instance, Coca-Cola images, since their logo is indeed PD.) –MuZemike 18:02, 7 June 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.