Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 June 14
June 14
[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, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kaifeng map 1910.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kaifeng map 1910-1-.JPG Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:26, 14 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, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- see nomination immediately above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:28, 14 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 F9 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rupesh at Liverpool.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- From subject's Facebook account [1], previously uploaded under different filename with that facebook account given as a source. No evidence that uploader is authorized to license this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 14 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 F9 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rupesh at cannes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- From subject's facebook account [2]. No evidence of uploader's "own work" claim. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 14 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, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PDF printout of an SVG map claimed to be "self-drawn" in Inkscape, "based on" a source map in a cited print publication. However, from the details of the graphics, it appears that the uploader has merely run Inkscape's automatic vectorization function over a scan of the print map, i.e. mechanically copied it rather than creatively presented its information in a new form. If this is the case, it cannot qualify as a freely licensed own creation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 14 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, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Olop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I doubt that this was created by the uploader, and I doubt that it is freely licensed. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 14 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bangan Hill.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Imprecise sourcing, I fail to see any reason to assume that this image is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The website from where the image was sourced is a local government website. Perhaps you failed to read the About page, imma post it for you nevertheless: http://www.bayombongtour.com/about.php
and the exact page where you will find the image http://www.bayombongtour.com/banganhill.php. Government websites in the Philippines are public domains. Just because they don't the have dot gov extension doesn't mean they are not government websites as many small local (municipal) governments here are plenty without proper government websites. Rio Hondo (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Governmental works from the government at national level are tagged as
{{Non-free Philippines government}}/{{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. Do we have any evidence that this also applies to local governments, or are the Philippines as the United States where works by local governments normally are unfree? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Im not sure about the US, but government works in the Philippines be it national or local, as long as its use fall on any one of 11 categories as stated in Chapter 8 Sec. 184 of the same IP Law (Limitations on Copyrights), they do not constitute copyright infringement. Specifically the provision of Sec. 184.1 (e) And I quote:
"(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned;" Source: http://trademarks.ipophil.gov.ph/tmonline/ipcode/CopyrightsCh8.htm Rio Hondo (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am reading this correctly, the current PD tag is incorrect - it is considered as "fair use", which means that the appropriate license and Fair Use tag need to be added. In addition, it is a very easy candidate for an F7-replaceable fair use image, as it's simply a picture of a national park that is, I presume, still in existance and easily photographed. Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 22 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Imprecise sourcing. I fail to see any reason to assume that this is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The website from where the image was sourced is a local government website. Perhaps you failed to read the About page, imma post it for you nevertheless: http://sanluisaurora.ph/about/ and the exact page where you will find the image http://sanluisaurora.ph/tourism/. Government websites in the Philippines are public domains. Rio Hondo (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Governmental works from the government at national level are tagged as
{{Non-free Philippines government}}/{{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. Do we have any evidence that this also applies to local governments, or are the Philippines as the United States where works by local governments normally are unfree? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Im not sure about the US, but government works in the Philippines be it national or local, as long as its use fall on any one of 11 categories as stated in Chapter 8 Sec. 184 of the same IP Law (Limitations on Copyrights), they do not constitute copyright infringement. Specifically the provision of Sec. 184.1 (e) And I quote:
"(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned;" Source: http://trademarks.ipophil.gov.ph/tmonline/ipcode/CopyrightsCh8.htm Rio Hondo (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See above - not PD and replaceable under F7 Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 22 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kanepremiere.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The link given as source shows only the image. The source is listed as "news source"-no name of publication given. Can't see how a copyright search could have been accomplished without knowing who took and/or who published the image. We hope (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this image was copied to Commons under the following file name:File:Estreno de Citizen Kane.jpg We hope (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The search was made using all relevant keywords and the fact that it was a photo. Nothing came for the required renewal period. Since it was an apparent news photo of an event, "news source" was given as a source.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really sure that you searched for all newspapers containing this image? Wouldn't it count as renewed if at least one newspaper renewed the copyright? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 14 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: Keep all under US laws for freedom of panorama. File:Botanical research laboratory, Saint Petersburg Botanical Garden.jpg has nothing copyrightable in it (the intersection of a wall?). Palm Greenhouse, St. Petersburg Botanical Garden.jpg is a very old structure but was apparently remodeled. The others show various degrees of creativity, some of which is probably copyrightable and other of which is not - but it is irrelevant, per US FOP laws. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Palm Greenhouse, St. Petersburg Botanical Garden.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Grand Choral Synagogue, St. Petersburg, Russia, main hall.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Northern Yard St. Petersburg Botanical Gardens.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Saint Petersburg botanical garden museum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Botanical research laboratory, Saint Petersburg Botanical Garden.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Picture taken in Russia, No Freedom of panorama, may be suitable to change to {{FoP-USonly}} Ronhjones (Talk) 22:27, 14 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.
All uploads by user:Mashaal86
[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 00:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am concerned because each of these images was originally uploaded as "a free file from somebody else". But when Mashaal86 saw the propsed deletion tag, he replaced them with other images claiming them as his own work. For example:
- File:Main Profile Picture (Junaid in 2010).jpg. Originally uploaded as File:Profile Picture (Junnaid).jpg with: Source = Was sent to me personally | Author = Muhammad Junaid | Permission = Evidence: Will be provided on request.
- File:Junaid Appreciation Award University of the Punjab.jpg. Originally uploaded as File:Junaid recieving Appreciation Award UoP.jpg with: Source = Was sent to me personally | Author = Muhammad Junaid | Permission = Evidence: Will be provided on request.
— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No hits on Google. Would have been easier to search if Commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-GoogleImages.js had been available on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:32, 15 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, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:McGuire1975.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Upload summary suggests that these are not own works but photos which are © Ra McGuire. Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 14 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.