Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 June 11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 11
[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⚡ 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:RyannShane.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is from IMDB, where there's no proof it is a free use photo. We hope (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To put it kindly, I think that the uploader hasn't grasped the idea of copyright. Xe has uploaded several images taken from around the WWW, without paying attention to who the copyright holder is and what the copyright licence is. All of these images have been replaceable fair use images of currently living persons, in any case. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Indigomoss1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Highly suspicious for an own work claim. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:39, 11 June 2012 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Captain Williams.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- claimed as "own work" when uploaded, captioned as "© Bruce Adams/Daily Mail" when used in User:Uboater, see discussion at User_talk:Uboater#Image_copyright_query PamD 11:25, 11 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Photo appears to be from the same series of Daily Mail photos by photographer Bruce Adams. The uploader has already admitted that he is not the copyright holder of this series of images (see User talk:Uboater#Image copyright query), and while he claims he had permission from the photographer to upload it, there's no evidence the image was released under the GFDL as tagged here. Psychonaut (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's clear that User:Uboater (the person pictured) did not take the photo himself, even though he uploaded it and claimed that it was his own work. It's a copyrighted photo from a professional photoshoot, and therefore has no place on Wikipedia absent the proper CC licensing. Softlavender (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2012 (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 as F8 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1973 Susan Strasberg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Copyright status uncertain: "This photo was distributed by CBS and released without required copyrighted notice before 1978. However, Susan Strasberg was a one-time guest star of Mannix, and this photo might have belonged to another photograph agency. Moreover, Mannix was produced by Paramount Television; any photo distributed by Paramount after 1963 is copyrighted due to copyright notice. Possibly, this photo might have been used first by either Paramount or another agency.[1]", more detail on page. This is used to say the file can not be moved to Commons, which makes no sense. —innotata 15:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I contacted we hope, and he said that this image is PD because of the CBS logo and lack of copyright notice. I'm going to contact Magog the Ogre to move all revisions. --George Ho (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case: old revision. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo was uploaded uncropped and with both sides. There are no copyright marks on it; it's dated and was sent out by CBS, as the back shows. There's no indication of any Paramount markings at all. In newrooms who kept records of photo use by attaching a news clipping to the photo's back for that purpose, the organization who provided the photo is credited. I think the "do not move" information in the template is erroneous and was confusing. This is a PD-pre 1978 photo and should be moved to Commons with all revisions. We hope (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - This has moved to Commons. I'm sure it is completely free, as we hope said. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The old revision appears to be unfree without source. The current revision appears to be properly licensed by the photographer. No opinion on Commons:COM:FOP#Ukraine as I can't find any date or sculptor for the statue. Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The original (of the current version of the file), uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia, is now on Commons as File:Monument to Daniel of Galicia in Lviv.jpg in any case. Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a complex enough logo to be considered non-free. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2012 (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: fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as {{subst:npd}} by User:Sreejithk2000 but I feel that it would be better to take it to PUF instead. User:Túrelio added a link to a page where it says that the copyright has expired. All Canadian photos taken before 1949 are in the public domain in Canada. However, this photo shows the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II of Canada, which was after 1949, so expired copyright means that it was a crown copyright. Unlike British crown copyrights, we don't have any confirmation as to whether Canadian crown copyrights apply worldwide. However, note that User:Túrelio linked to [2], a Canadian government web site, where the Canadian government has written that there are no restrictions on use ("Restrictions on use: Nil"). If the Canadian government, i.e. the copyright holder of this photo in the United States, claims that there are no restrictions on use, wouldn't this mean that it is free to use the photo in the United States? Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it does not mean that. The description pages for works hosted on the LAC website include two sections that must not be confused: A section "Copyright", which states the copyright status of the work under the Canadian Copyright Act. And a section "Restrictions on use", which states if there are restrictions on the work. That is stuff like contractual restrictions. A statement by LAC that there are no restrictions on use is not a permission in the name of the the copyright holder for free use of works that are copyrighted. Please see also the note at Commons:Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the photographer worked for the National Film Board, and not independently, means that this was "work for hire" and the copyright would have originally resided with the NFB. Under Canadian copyright law, where there is no "personal" owner (i.e., the original owner was corporate) for a photograph, copyright only exists for 50 years from date of first issue (presumably 1953) which means that this entered the public domain in 2003. Hence the tag by the government agency which is the residual holder of these images (the Archives) that its copyright has expired. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the copyright has expired in Canada. No one is questioning that. The thing is that files on Wikipedia have to be free in the United States, and in the United States, photos enter the public domain 95 years after they were first published, which is later. The question is whether Canadian government photos are free to use in the United States even though the copyright hasn't expired in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Crown Copyright and Licensing (CCL) [of Canada] is pleased to announce that permission to reproduce Government of Canada works is no longer required, in part or in whole, and by any means, for personal or public non-commercial purposes, or for cost-recovery purposes, unless otherwise specified in the material you wish to reproduce." Since Wikipedia is a public non-commercial site, then the copyright owner has granted permission to use the item, even if it is still considered to be copyrighted in the US. In Canada, it is in the public domain; in the US, permission to reproduce has been granted. I don't think that US law imposes restrictions when the copyright owner does not. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia requires content (with specific exceptions) to be free to use commercially. —innotata 19:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting conundrum. Here is more. It is highly unlikely that anyone in Canada went through the process of registering the copyright of this photo in the US in 1953, or later, and since at that time the US was not part of the Berne Convention, Canadian copyright did not apply to the US. (We lost a number of items to US "pirates" under this.) Now copyright was restored in these items later on but under Section 104A (Copyright in Restored Works) of the US Copyright law, subsection h (definitions):
- (6) The term “restored work” means an original work of authorship that—
- ... (B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection.
- It appears that the photo is not eligible for "restored copyright" and therefore the extended copyright coverage. It's almost 100 per cent certain that it was in the public domain in the US after 1953 (because the US did not recognize foreign copyright laws applying to the US), and it is not part of the "restored copyright" process. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Restored works are those that were still copyright on the URAA date (1996). —innotata 19:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, if the Government of Canada considers the work in the public domain, it's not going to chase anyone for using it commercially, especially if the user is outside the country. As far as Canada is concerned, it's gone. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Government of Canada considers the work to be in the public domain in Canada. It is unclear if the Government of Canada also considers the work to be in the public domain in the United States, where different criteria are used for determining the copyright term. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, if the Government of Canada considers the work in the public domain, it's not going to chase anyone for using it commercially, especially if the user is outside the country. As far as Canada is concerned, it's gone. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we are now going in circles here, repeating ourselves. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2012 (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 nominated revision as nominated, then speedy delete the entire file under F8. — ξxplicit 00:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:HendersonMineGloryHole.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The current revision appears to be a copyvio from here. Might also be vandalism to hide the old revision. Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:WardenclyffeDestroyed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The source does not specify when, where or if the image was published. Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2012 (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.