Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
September 22
[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 as F9 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously incorrect licensing tag; sourced to Google Images. David1217 What I've done 00:51, 22 September 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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously incorrect licensing tag; sourced to Google Images. David1217 What I've done 00:54, 22 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- non-free image used with insufficient purpose. scene is not notable. serioushat 11:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The file is listed as fair use. If you disagree with the fair use claim, please take it to WP:FFD instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This image is currently 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. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 22 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Alim-radar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader claims that permission is given here. I checked Google Translate and the only thing I saw related to licences is this: "Your license is not included visit to this forum." No evidence that this is available under the specified licence. Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will ask the owner to write the permission in another place. Aspahbod (talk) 14:38, 22 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:ESAM FC 138.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Licence says published before 1923, but there is no evidence of publication before that year. Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know the rules very well, but given the man looks to be no older than 25, it must have been taken before 1915. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The rule is that the photo must have been published before 1923. It is irrelevant when the photo was taken. If unpublished, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer (if the photographer is known) or 120 years after the photo was taken (if the photographer is unknown). --Stefan2 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know the rules very well, but given the man looks to be no older than 25, it must have been taken before 1915. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 23 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Violates the copyright of the text on the sign. See Commons:COM:FOP#United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a public sign on a public street, there are no copyrighted logos or symbols. It is not a building and it is not an artwork or sculpture. I took the picture with my own camera. I think you are wrong on this one. Mikebar (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, texts are also copyrighted. The only copyrighted works you can take photos of in the United States are buildings. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd update it to a fair use claim and call it happy. Hobit (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I think that is a fair consensus. Mikebar (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, you would just be moving the matter to WP:FFD. The image is nowhere close to meeting WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't think so. The image itself isn't the issue at that point, it's the text. And quoting the text in the article wouldn't be an issue. It's an interesting case at the very least. Is a picture, otherwise fine but for _text_ it captures, somehow more of an issue than the text itself being quoted? Don't know, but I don't see why it would be. Hobit (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Raised the issue here. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned in my comment at WP:VPP we do not aggressively enforce fair use rules on text. However, in this case, I am hard pressed to see how quoting the text in the article would qualify as fair use. There is no good reason we need to quote a sign erected by Arlington county in the article. The ideas contained in the sign can be adequately conveyed without a direct quote, there is nothing particularly special or noteworthy about the signs language, and at least in the photo form, we are using the entire work, which always weighs against a fair use justification for text. Monty845 17:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, you would just be moving the matter to WP:FFD. The image is nowhere close to meeting WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I think that is a fair consensus. Mikebar (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd update it to a fair use claim and call it happy. Hobit (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per US's FOP casebook, this would be considered a work of art (the shape of the sign, and the text within it), and definitely not a free image (irregardless of text or not), the copyright held by (most likely) Arlington County based on the small text of the sign as well as the erection date being far outside 1978 where an explicit copyright was needed. Thus this needs to be handled under WP:NFCC. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. But does the fact that it's got text on it make it so we can't use it under fair use at all (see Stefan2's comments below). I've got to say he's got a good point but it also seems massively counter intuitive that we need to be more restrictive with a sculpture that has text than one that does not. Hobit (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, texts are also copyrighted. The only copyrighted works you can take photos of in the United States are buildings. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See also WP:NFCC#3b. You should not use an entire work, but this image uses the entire literary work (every single word). In order to satisfy WP:NFCC#3b, I think that you would have to remove some words. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So if parts were blurred but did not detract from the content tying into the article it's be ok? Mikebar (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It still has no chance of meeting WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So if parts were blurred but did not detract from the content tying into the article it's be ok? Mikebar (talk) 22:50, 28 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, with a link to [1] provided as evidence. That link is dead now, but the most recent non-404 saved copy at Archive.org [2] shows the text of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. "Non-Commercial" is not free enough for Wikipedia; see WP:NONCOM. —Bkell (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Apart from the non-commercial licence, this image violates Commons:COM:TOYS. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the underlying object appears to be a sculpture, thus whatever permissions the photo has, the sculpture is based on the intellectual property of Sunrise, the owners of the Gundam franchise, thus a non-free derivative. (it does not appear to be a toy, it looks more like a statuette) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 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: closed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Game screen capture. Eeekster (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This image is currently 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. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this is kept, it needs a rename, since I can't see what game this is about, other than "the game" internet meme that it might be about. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Renamed. The file is tagged as non-free, so it isn't deletable at WP:PUF. If you feel that it should be deleted, I assume that the nomination should be taken elsewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The file was moved from File:A screen-shot of the game, 2012.jpg to File:X Motor Racing screenshot.jpg by Stefan2 (talk · contribs) at 08:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 24 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "All rights reserved to Sophié Jayden-Jayne/Phoenix Vanessa Forsyth" contradicts with {{PD-self}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 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.