Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 8

< June 7	June 9 >

June 8[edit]

File:FSClogo.jpg[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 ⚡ 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The logo states it is copyright Forest Stewardship Council, not Cal Poly, so a license from Cal Poly does not seem to cover it? I removed it anyway since the text was redundant with the Forest Stewardship Council article W Nowicki (talk) 01:14, 8 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:Google results for Stowe.jpg[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 ⚡ 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google results for Stowe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Screenshot of Google search page, which is copyrighted by Google. —fetch ·comms 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was that? I took a snapshot of the Google search myself using my own computer, and no one else owns this photo. People use "screen shots" all the time to demonstrate something in a computer manual for software instructions. Who told you that I am not allowed to make a screenshot of something on my own computer?

I am afraid you are wrong for not allowing this file:

Google Logo or Screenshots

Look before you leap.

Skol fir (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Fetchcomms is correct, a screenshot of the copyrighted Google website is a derivative work of Google's website. Wikipedia has a whole set of non-free image copyright tags for screenshots. In this particular case, you would normally use {{Non-free web screenshot}} and write a fair use rationale for using an image of Google's website. However, in this case any rationale you wrote would fail to meet WP:NFCC#9 since this image does not appear in an article. —RP88 ^(talk) 10:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see the link I gave above to the Goggle Permissions site? -- Google Logo or Screenshots. I used this screenshot for illustrative purposes in the Talk:Reid Stowe/Archive 1 page, and the screenshot for "Kadouri" on the Talk:Reid Stowe page. I don't know why you insist on different rules when Google allows it, as spelled out in the link above. --Skol fir (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did indeed see the link. I think you've misunderstood my point. Google's website is copyrighted, it is not public domain as the license tag you've placed on this image claims. Google is only willing to license screenshots if the use is "instructive or illustrative" and explicityly forbid uses such as "advertising your products or services." Wikipedia only considers a license to be a free license if it permits the use of the work for any purpose, in any medium, even commercially. So Google's license is a non-free license. Wikipedia has officially adopted the policy that its goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, and as such only permits non-free content that meets a set of criteria. —RP88 ^(talk) 15:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right then. Would I be able to justify use of the screenshot in a Talk Page under a non-free license, or does the image have to be shown in the actual article itself? In other words does my use of the image in an illustrative capacity on a Talk Page meet the requirement that reads: "7. # One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article."? If not, I understand and my words in the talk page will have to suffice, IOW the reader will have to take my "word" for it. :) I just find it sad that we are prohibited from using what is available to enhance the discussion, since "a picture is worth a thousand words." Skol fir (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be the actual article, per WP:NFCC#9, which only permits non-free media in article namespace. All pages that begin with "<prefix>:" are in some other namespace. The Wikimedia Foundation is pretty insistent on wanting to be a "free encyclopedia." I remember at one point a project wanted to add some pages to the "Help:" namespace that used screenshots of UI elements from various non-free web browsers in order to assist users solve browser-specific problems that were occurring at the time. They asked the Wikimedia Foundation for a special exemption from the "article namespace only" rule with regards to their fair-use browser images, but they were turned down. —RP88 ^(talk) 15:46, 11 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:Search on kadouri.jpg[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 ⚡ 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Search on kadouri.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Screenshot of Google search page, which is copyrighted by Google. —fetch ·[[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span

Since when was that? I took a snapshot of the Google search myself using my own computer, and no one else owns this photo. People use "screen shots" all the time to demonstrate something in a computer manual for software instructions. Who told you that I am not allowed to make a screenshot of something on my own computer?

I am afraid you are wrong for not allowing this file:

Google Logo or Screenshots

Look before you leap.

Skol fir (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above for File:Google results for Stowe.jpg. —RP88 ^(talk) 10:45, 8 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:Schooner Anne.jpg[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 discussion was: Keep; solution offered, awaiting OTRS permission. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schooner Anne.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Site says "free for publication" but there is no explicit license given. —fetch ·comms 01:27, 8 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) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the managers of the source website, probably the easiest way to rectify this issue is to ask them to change the "Informational brochure and high-resolution images are free for publication" statement on their web site to something like "Informational brochure and high-resolution images are free for publication. They are also licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." That permits users to redistribute and adapt the images, so long as they are property attributed to 1000days.net. However, if they want to leave their web site alone and just license this image under a free license so that it can be used on Wikipedia, request permission to use this image by following the directions at WP:PERMISSIONS. I'm happy to answer any questions you have about this procedure and will assist you if you need help. —RP88 ^(talk) 10:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Written permission obtained. --Skol fir (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've obtained permission, 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 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) 15:28, 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:DSC00235 copy.jpg[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 ⚡ 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC00235 copy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This file (source [1]) has a claim of PD, but on the website, its disclaimer clearly says that all images from this website are copyrighted and are not to be displayed in public without permission, which contradicts the PD claim. –MuZemike 02:20, 8 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:Auditorium.jpg[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 discussion was: deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — ξ ^xplicit 02:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A history of several images, impossible to tell if any were actually released under a free license. — ξ ^xplicit 05:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image is currently only in use at University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication and Murphy Hall. I've reverted the image appearance, description, and license tags to match that use. —RP88 ^(talk)

However, I agree that it's not clear that the user who uploaded the image that reflects its current use understand and agreed that he was agreeing to the pre-existing license tag. We may well have to delete this image. —RP88 ^(talk) 17:08, 8 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:Journal_of_Addictions_Nursing.jpg[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 ⚡ 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Journal of Addictions Nursing.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Clearly magazine cover Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:59, 8 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:BEAST_BOY3.jpg[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 ⚡ 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BEAST BOY3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Looks like a TV screen shot. feydey (talk) 15:16, 8 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:Drunken Angel 1948.jpg[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 ⚡ 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drunken Angel 1948.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The image is a copyrighted screenshot from movie by Akira Kurosawa and according to PD-Japan-film still under copyright Sreejith K (talk) 18:36, 8 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.