Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 5 October 7 >

October 6[edit]

File:54thandcityconcert2.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⚡ 02:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:54thandcityconcert2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:54thandcityconcert1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
  • Unused images. No real source and no real descriptions. From the users edit history it seems they were trying to promote an a Capella group. Combine that with the users name the images name my best guess is "54th and city" is the name of the group they were hoping to promote here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with Soundvisions1.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:39, 6 October 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:Schneider Eddie 1937 02.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 Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schneider Eddie 1937 02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • This is used under the rationale that copyright was renewed, but I don't know how this was established. Listing here in case we can produce evidence that the Post and its authors did not renew copyright. Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming newspapers to be in the books, periodicals and serials volumes - the ones on Google and Gutenberg - there's no sign of any renewal for the Washington Post itself (as opposed to various books published by the Post, a few signed columns, and, of course, Disney's stuff) in the 1965-1969 catalogs. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it seems highly probable that this is {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how reliable it is, but I've found this potentially useful compilation that says that the Washington Post began renewing its issues with January 1, 1951. Based on that, I'd be inclined to withdraw this request, but I'll ask the reviewing admin to see if he thinks that a reliable source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I've previously checked over the entries for LATimes and NYTimes dates from that list and they matched up with what I was able to find digging through Google's scans of the copyright records, so I'm inclined to accept their dates as accurate. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 18 October 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:Shivani in red.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.


Deleted. No permission. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shivani in red.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Image looks professional; unlikely that the uploader holds the rights. Leo 03:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: (Unless the uploader submits a valid OTRS) The image here was uploaded today but was uploaded on July 22, 2010 on Flickr: P1010045 copy with "All Rights Reserved" attached. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the product of a professional photographer, for what it's worth. It was taken with a consumer camera and has significant technical flaws. There is no reason to believe that the uploader was not the author. The flickr image is of lower resolution than the WP copy and so can not be the source. Keep. Thparkth (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • even more comment - To reiterate, the fact that the image on WP is of higher resolution than the one on flickr proves that flickr was not the source, regardless of the timeline. The WP uploader had access to a high resolution version of the image, and by far the most likely explanation for that is that they were the photographer, as they claimed at upload. I'm not convinced by any argument based on the assumption that one photographer can only ever use one camera. Thparkth (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Keep in mind several other images from this photo shoot appear on the Flickr account as well. That Flickr account was created in July 2010 and the images were upped at that time and the text descriptions would lead the reader to feel they were also shot at that time. ("This photo was taken on July 22, 2010 using an Olympus C8080WZ.") when in reality they got tagged with the date of upload. In doing even more research images from this shoot appeared even earlier on the internet, in January 2010, at Shivani Bhai Stills. Even if that is not the source of *this* image the fact remains they came from somewhere first, even prior to the Flickr uploads. But there are a few important items you are overlooking in all of this. First take a closer look at the meta of this image as hosted on Wikipedia. Now look at the same data on the image from Flickr (Meta) and compare it - see anything familiar? Yes - its the same. And one other *VERY* important fact in all of this - with a free account one does not have access to the original files, meaning free users can only access the large and smaller versions. With a pro account original files are available for download. and the user can specify who can download original files: Only you; your friends and/or family; your contacts; any Flickr user; or anyone.(See What do I get with a Pro account? and Can I access my original images? for more info). Nowhere is there any indication that "Lilly Haridasan" took any of these images. As I did say "Delete: (Unless the uploader submits a valid OTRS)" Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reply - All of this boils down to "I can find other versions of this image on the Internet, so the uploader must be a liar." But in fact the WP copy is the highest-resolution of them all - the native camera resolution in fact - and has full metadata. The uploader had access to the original file created by the camera, and the most likely explanation for that is that they were the photographer. Given the equipment used and the quality of the image we can conclude that the photographer is an enthusiastic amateur, which is entirely consistent with them uploading the images to flickr and elsewhere on the web. The flickr account is not a pro account, so they do not have the ability to allow downloads of their original images. There is no possibility that either flickr or the 123telegu site were the source of the image because they are both much lower resolution. I have no idea why you think that the images having the same metadata on WP and flickr is significant; of course they will be the same if the photographer uploaded the same image to both places. The only possible basis for doubt here is that the photographer doesn't appear to care much about attributing dates to his work, but this actually argues for the uploader being the photographer and flickr account holder, because they were equally lazy about dates when uploading to both sites - using today's date in both cases ;) In short, on the balance of probabilities, the uploader is most likely the photographer as they claimed. Thparkth (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTRS is Needed: For you it seems all of this boils down to "I can not find the original image on the internet, so the uploader of this copy must be the photographer even if their other uploads were deleted, or were copyvios, taken from other sources on the internet. As it is far too much to ask them to submit a permissions email to OTRS to confirm they are the photographer just let it go." Sorry, I don't work that way at all. First you tried to say the flckr account was not important because it did not show the "original" as is posted here. When I explained why not only this image but the other images at the Flickr account are important, and why the "original" may not be viewable or downloadable, you say it still doesn't matter but add on the meta/exif "will be the same if the photographer uploaded the same image to both places". If that is the case - that means the license being used here is conflicted as the one on Flickr is "all rights reserved". Going back to what I first said (Delete unless a valid OTRS is obtained), it is 100% relevant if "shivani bhai" is possibly the source of this image. You still fail to understand, or choose to ignore, that there are several other images from this same photo shoot on that site. You may not have understood that one does not need a "pro" account to upload an higher resolution file, only one to download it, or to allow others to download it. Based on the meta it is clear the images on Flickr *and* the one here came from the same source - however the image being hosted at Wikipedia is *not* the original source image, nor are the ones at Flickr. Did they came from the source? I would say they either came from the source or were made from a copy of the source. And what is the name of the image on Flickr? "P1010045 copy." This is why the meta is important. (In case you missed it, "Adobe Photoshop 7.0" is the "creation software" used for both of the images.) I believe that "shivani bhai" is either a die hard fan of the subject of someone who would have access to all of these images. Could they be the manger? The photographer? A webmaster? "Lilly Haridasan"? Shivani Bhai herself? I don't know - but if "Lilly Haridasan" is the photographer of all of these images I am willing to retract my "delete (unless OTRS in submitted)" when you have them confirm they are the original source who supplied the images from this same photo shoot to 123telugu, facebook 1, Indyarocks, Shivani Bhai's Photos on ibibo and, as the implication of this is that the Flickr account of "shivani bhai" is likely to be "Lilly Haridasan", than it should be no problem to have "lily" change the license on the Flickr version of this one. Along the way they can verify that they also took the other images (Some of which were deleted from Wikipedia but found on the same Flickr account) that are also found elsewhere including locations such as facebook 2, shivanimalluheroine, shivanibhai and ShivaniBhai-Profile (Which, FYI, has a higher resolution image from this photo shoot, which must mean that the poster/uploader there, "ANURAJ", is the photographer and not "Lilly Haridasan" if one is to use the same logic as you are using here). Yes I tend to be long winded but I do not understand at all why asking uploaders to submit a permissions email to OTRS is considered so offensive to some. Any photographer would have no issue or problems with submitting one. If this image is deleted, as the others already have been, and a vlaid OTRS is obtained than they will be restored. (And, as an aside, if "Lilly Haridasan" really took all of these images, and has done the various photo shoots found all over, they are more than "an enthusiastic amateur" and, even if they don't "appear to care much about attributing dates", they for sure would care about the name "Lilly Haridasan" being out there as the photographer of the images. To be fair I don't see *any* names with any of these photos anywhere, other than watermarks for some of the websites they appear on) Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:58, 17 October 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:10 Egyptian Pound reverse 2008.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: Closed . All images now tagged with "Non-free media use rationale"--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:10 Egyptian Pound reverse 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:10 Egyptian Pound obverse 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:10 Egyptian Pound obverse 1984.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:10 Egyptian Pound reverse 1984.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:20 Egyptian Pound obverse 1984.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:20 Egyptian Pound reverse 1984.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:200 EGP obverse.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:20 EGP obverse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:20 EGP reverse.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:10 EGP reverse.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:10 EGP obverse.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:1 EGP reverse.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Currency - Does Egypt release currency designs as PD? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been brought up before with Egyptian notes. I think all of them can easily have a fair use rationale, if needed, but attempts to contact the Egyptian authorities have fallen on deaf ears on multiple occasions. I think this is one of those cases where my interpretation is that the images are {{PD-Egypt}}. If the government of Egypt complains in any way, they can easily be removed (in the U.S. they would have little recourse as images of the coinage/bills are available everywhere). — BQZip01 — talk 01:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 07:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note. The discussion back in February was never closed until today, nor were the images ever tagged for deletion up until now. — ξxplicit 07:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I found one of the uploader’s image with a good "Fair-use" tagging. All that was needed to was bit of copy/pasting and two moving back from commons. Now these images are 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 and the image kept.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:37, 6 October 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:ThreePumpkins.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⚡ 02:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ThreePumpkins.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • No license given. Fæ (talk) 11:03, 6 October 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:White-Alma 01.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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:White-Alma 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • This image is claimed as PD, pre-1923, but I see nothing to substantiate that. The subject of the photograph lived until 1946, and presuming the source is accurate it was not published until 1939, according to the article Alma White. Even if the individual images were published prior to 1923, the compilation reflects the creative selection of the 1939 publishers. Has copyright on the book lapsed? I think we need some showing that this is the case to retain this image, given that the article already has free images in it. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that this comes from Alma White's evangelism by Clara Paige, the LOC says this was a 1939 publication. There's no sign of a renewal that I can find in the Google scans of the catalogs, not for the title, not for Clara Paige, or not for the publisher "Pillar of fire" (which is actually registered as the copyright-holder of some of Paige's other work). Since renewal was required, this would seem to be {{PD-US-not-renewed}}, as are over 90% of books published before 1/1/1964 in the US. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 10 October 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:Analog Pussy Vinyl Trax.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⚡ 02:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Analog Pussy Vinyl Trax.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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:Haugsetting2.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, I'm sorry to say, was delete. As with the other item, it is difficult to see how this can be in the public domain in Norway before 2016 or 2017, the 70th year after the artist's death. It seems unknowable when if it is, or when it will be in the public domain in the US with the information currently available. Norway has quite different terms for simple photographs, but for "artworks" it is clearly 70y PMA, while for the US, some evidence of publication is needed if this is not to be PD almost forever due to the URAA extensions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haugsetting2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Comment - TBH, I'm not sure why it was closed as keep: we never addressed if the image was created after 1922 or not. I may do some research and ask the admin to reconsider. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the earlier image has now been altered to close as delete. Maybe this will assist someone in finally closing this discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from 2010 September 8 to attract more comments . --ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:57, 6 October 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:Lackawaxen.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.


Regretably this will have to be deleted for want of information. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lackawaxen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Minisink Ford.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Neither uploader nor subsequent article give any indication on author and/or if this is pre-1923. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinged uploader to remind him. And can I remind the nominator and closer that 1923 is not the only relevant date. Given the low rate of renewals, 1963 (date to which renewals required) and even 1977 (explicit notice required) are also important. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but uploader provided evidence for neither of those either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted and merged from 2010 September 8, (here and here) to attract more comments . --ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The uploader has had plenty of time to fix the issue and has made edit up to October 15th, but hasn't. I say the images should be deleted.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 15:04, 18 October 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:French_Quarter_Home.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.


Deleted. Can be undeleted if the unanswered questions are ever answered. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:French Quarter Home.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Whatever this is, I don't see how it can be claimed as self if it's a reproduction of the artist concerned's work Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photograph is the property of the daughter. The original was donated Allworthy's family to the Louisiana State Museum (LSM). I included that in the references. The image uploaded is a photograph that belongs to the daughter of the artist, so I thought it would be public domain. If it is not, can you please direct me to how I can make that change. The painting is at the LSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoliPelu (talk • contribs) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the conditions with which the daughter donated it to the museum.
    • She will probably know if the museum now owns the copyright, or if they were only given permission to show it and/or it was donated into the public domain.
    • Is the daughter the executrix of her father's estate?
    • When was this work first made available to the public? This, among other works, quite likely have an expired copyright but we can't be sure without more information. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from 2010 September 8 to attract more comments . --ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - None of the source information provided above even appears on the image page. While the image may be {{PD}} but we can't be sure since the uploader provided so little information. The image should be deleted.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 14:55, 18 October 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:White Ford F-Series Brush Truck - Chaires-Capitola VFD.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:White Ford F-Series Brush Truck - Chaires-Capitola VFD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Claimed self cc by 3.0 and gfdl, however permission is 'All rights reserved'. Author could possibly be different to uploader. Acather96 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 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:John Robitaille at RI waterfront.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Robitaille at RI waterfront.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Uploader claims to be copyright holder and releases into public domain, however, ©John Robitaille is also on the page. Acather96 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 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:JohnRobitailleAtOcean.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JohnRobitailleAtOcean.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
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:AIR REGIONAL WEBSITE.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AIR REGIONAL WEBSITE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Says image appears to be from a website. Is probbly not owned by uploader. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:17, 6 October 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:Allama I I Kazi.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: delete all. — ξxplicit 07:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allama I I Kazi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Elsa Kazi self portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:A G N Kazi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Mushtak Ali Kazi.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Justice Mushtak Ali Kazi.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Khan Bahadur Ghulam Nabi Kazi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Justice B G N Kazi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Dr Ali Ahmed S Kazi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Elsa Kazi-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Dr Kazi with Governor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:A G N Kazi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Uploader seems to have take a large number of images from the Kazi family from various sources and claimed {{tl|pd-self}] I doubt upoader owns any of these copyrights. Some may be PD for other resaon, however, there are not enough details to complete this change over. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:22, 6 October 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:Central School Calgary 1905.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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Central School Calgary 1905.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • The image itself says it's from the "Greanbow archives", so this is not {{pd-self}}. However, this image may be PD for other reasons, but more informtion is needed. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have permission from the university (copyright holder) to use this image within the Wikipedia article. Shahroze 9:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Since the copyright holder is the university, the copyright tag is wrong. {{PD-self}} means that you took the photo and you own the copyright and are released the image to PD. However, even if you have permission from the university you still have to have that permission for use verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. However, this may not be necessary (as I said before) if you supply more details. If you can supply the name of the person who took the photo, it could be {{pd-old}}, . If you can show when it was first published, it could be {{PD-US}}. Or if you can show that the "Greanbow archives" are all PD then it can be tag as such. There are any number of things that could make this PD, but there isn't enough information provided at this time.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Shahroze has been "temporarily blocked" due to his uploading of copyrighted information (independent of this PUF and myself). I don't know if he can get permission from the university verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system, so a section my need to be made without further input from Shahroze.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 15:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, retag: should be {{PD-Canada}} (unless it is a work subject to Crown Copyright, which seems unlikely given the subject) as created before 1 January 1949. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 19 October 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:Karamapnaaapnaa.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 HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karamapnaaapnaa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Appears to be a promotional photo. I doubt uploader owns copyright. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:14, 6 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_October_6&oldid=1089068362"