Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
March 28
[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, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:FraNVE2euro TYE 2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Two issues: 1) While French francs are fine, nothing is known about French euros. 2) The photographer is unknown, see Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. This actually looks more like a painting of the coin, but I guess that the artist's permission still is needed. No evidence of permission from the website hosting the coin. Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 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, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- copyright owner unknown Tocal89 (talk) 06:57, 28 March 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 Foxj (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:A montage of Omaha.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- "From existing Wikipedia articles" but without sources listed. If at least one image requires attribution, then this is a copyvio since no one is attributed. One of the photos shows a public artwork and it seems to be in the United States, so there might additionally be freedom of panorama issues. Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop your Nazi-like policing of non-profit/educational use images. And find something better to do with your lives. Redcorreces (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The sculpture in the lower might be the "Road to Omaha" statue that is in front of Johnny Rosenblatt Stadium. If it is, it may be copyrighted. If it is copyrighted, then this image may be non-free.--Rockfang (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any of the images in "existing Wikipedia articles", but I did find the same images elsewhere on the web, with sources outside Wikipedia: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (and you can find the TD Ameritrade Park photo easily by searching for "TD Ameritrade Park Omaha Credit: John Horvatinovich"). So I'm a little skeptical of the public domain claim. --Mosmof (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop your Nazi-like policing of non-profit/educational use images. And find something better to do with your lives. Redcorreces (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-because|Photographs of places}}
- The montage itself was made by me. As for the photos used, these are images of locations, structures, etc. that are for practical purposes public property and should not be restricted from being used for non-profit and educational purposes, such as this website. Furthermore, I certify that these images are not watermarked, nor otherwise marked copyrighted, nor did I crop or edit them in such a way as to conceal such markings. The fact that they are free of such markings and that they are online implies that they are royalty-free and that the so-called owners of the images have a reasonable expectation that their images may be viewed, downloaded and used by anyone. And again, I created this montage and uploaded it to Wikipedia for the non-profit and educational purpose that Wikipedia stands for.Redcorreces (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC) BY EVEN THINKING OF DELETING THIS IMAGE, YOU IMPLY THAT YOU ARE IN DISAGREEMENT OF WIKIPEDIA'S PURPOSE. A copy of this comment will appear on the image entry, as you suggested. Thank you.Redcorreces (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop your Nazi-like policing of non-profit/educational use images. And find something better to do with your lives. Redcorreces (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A picture doesn't become more free only because you call everyone a Nazi. If you want this to be kept, you need to name each photo in the montage, prove that the photos are free and prove that the copyright to the statue on one of the photos has expired. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does and no, I do not (need to name each photo, etc).. What part of "Photos of Places are Public Domain" don't you understand? And what part of non-profit/educational exemption don't you understand? And if I want it kept, IT WILL BE KEPT. That's not up to you to decide. OK? Again, BY EVEN THINKING OF DELETING THIS IMAGE, YOU IMPLY THAT YOU ARE IN DISAGREEMENT OF WIKIPEDIA'S PURPOSE. Leave my photo - and everyone else's for that matter - alone. Do something better with your time and your life. Redcorreces (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A statement that "Photos of Places are Public Domain" is not going to save this image since the statement obviously is wrong: an photo is not in the public domain only because it depicts a public place. If you are not planning to provide a list of the photos used for this collage and prove that the photos are free, you will have to accept that this collage is going to be deleted as having no source. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter. I'll post the photo back whenever necessary, so don't waste you time being a wanna-be Nazi. This is a non-profit and educational website. Get that through your head. Redcorreces (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A statement that "Photos of Places are Public Domain" is not going to save this image since the statement obviously is wrong: an photo is not in the public domain only because it depicts a public place. If you are not planning to provide a list of the photos used for this collage and prove that the photos are free, you will have to accept that this collage is going to be deleted as having no source. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does and no, I do not (need to name each photo, etc).. What part of "Photos of Places are Public Domain" don't you understand? And what part of non-profit/educational exemption don't you understand? And if I want it kept, IT WILL BE KEPT. That's not up to you to decide. OK? Again, BY EVEN THINKING OF DELETING THIS IMAGE, YOU IMPLY THAT YOU ARE IN DISAGREEMENT OF WIKIPEDIA'S PURPOSE. Leave my photo - and everyone else's for that matter - alone. Do something better with your time and your life. Redcorreces (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A picture doesn't become more free only because you call everyone a Nazi. If you want this to be kept, you need to name each photo in the montage, prove that the photos are free and prove that the copyright to the statue on one of the photos has expired. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the images claimed to be public domain in that montage:
- the one of the Desert Dome is from [7], in which city-data.com does not guarantee that all of their submitters have released their submissions into the public domain (in fact, the opposite that they assume they are copyrighted).
- Omaha's skyline comes from [8], which I find nowhere that Mr. Williams, a professional photographer (read, in it for the money), has released that image into the public domain.
That's just from my research of those two images so far. My guess is that none of those images in that "montage" were in fact public domain or under any free license to be used. Nearly all of those images have free versions already out there. --MuZemike 03:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, I found 7 out of the 8 images in the montage elsewhere on the internet (my earlier comment is the fourth bullet), and didn't take much work. It's all irrelevant, of course, if you're under the mistaken belief that publishing a photograph strips it of its copyrights and pointing out copyright law is akin to genocide. --Mosmof (talk) 04:00, 30 March 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence of permission for CC-BY 1.0. I can't find any evidence of any free licence, but given the open source status of Ubuntu, it is very possible that this might be free. Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (see copy on 'Commons') Image is modern reproduction by a current artist; source states: "All rights reserved. Copyright 2012 © Exotic India" 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with image
This image is a modern reproduction by a current (presumed living) artist:
Sold as Item Code: ME80
Illuminated Miniature Painting On Vasli Paper; 10.5" x 14.5"
Artist Kailash Raj
All rights reserved. Copyright 2012 © Exotic India
[Contact page for Exotic India]
~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 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.