Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
September 30
[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Avbprofessionalv210.04.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- It is unclear if the permission is permission for Wikipedia, permission to use the image or permission for GFDL. Also no OTRS ticket. Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded this image - it is a publicity photograph and I have been given permission by Anthony Venn Brown to use this image and upload it onto Wikipedia = if somebody could advise me what I need to do to verify - this - I can produce an email if necessary frollus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frollus (talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The permission needs to be sent to OTRS. See WP:CONSENT. If the permission only is for Wikipedia, then it is not enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:CAEU Members.PNG (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.
- 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:B-23-1991.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Tagged {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}, but the source is not a U.S. Army site (in fact, the source site appears to be Ukrainian), and no evidence is provided that this photograph is actually a work of the U.S. Army as claimed. —Bkell (talk) 04:04, 30 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free image. Taken from [2], the press page of Statsbygg. Licensing information states: "Pressen kan benytte bildene av Statsbyggs ledelse fritt, men vennligst oppgi fotograf/Statsbygg ved bruk." translation: "the press can use the images of Statsbygg's management freely, but please state photograph/Statsbygg when used." Image has been uploaded with CC-BY-SA-3.0, which is not implied in the reuse permission. Arsenikk (talk) 10:56, 30 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rahman Baba.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Invalid PD reason ("Pashto poet"). Unclear if it is a recent or an old illustration. Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 30 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dubious own work: website screenshot. Also likely WP:LINKVIO: the image is a list of copyrighted works which can be downloaded illegally using information on the website. Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 30 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dubious own work: website screenshot. Also likely WP:LINKVIO: the image is a list of copyrighted works which can be downloaded illegally using information on the website. Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 30 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It says that this image is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but there is no evidence of publication. Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 30 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⚡ 18:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It says that this was "taken and published in the early 1950s" but there is no way to verify that it was published. The publication should be indicated so that the PD status can be verified. Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The image was scanned and is dated to 1951. I obtained it from the Ministry of Housing and Municipalities' archive.--Droodkin (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing: if the first publication was in Bahrain in the 1950s, then the photo is copyrighted in the United States because of the URAA. Photos from Bahrain can only be in the public domain in the United States if they were published before 1946. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:57, 30 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⚡ 18:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Burger Baron menu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a photograph of a drive-through menu at a fast-food restaurant in Canada. It was originally tagged {{Non-free logo}}, but that was clearly not an appropriate tag, because this is not an image of the logo of the restaurant (yes, the logo does incidentally appear in the photo, but the subject of the photo is the menu, not the logo). So I changed the tag to {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, in accordance with the Flickr source [3]. But I am not sure whether the photographer can release this under such a license—if there is any copyright in the menu, this photo would be a derivative work, right? —Bkell (talk) 18:00, 30 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⚡ 02:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this is an unfree file, but it has a Fair Use rationale. I've cleaned up the tagging a bit, mainly to add the Flickr poster's name, but I think that FUR:Logo applies, since the logo is a part of the image, however small. Also, I agree that the work is derivative: thus the nonfree tag. Again, fair use. Need I say more? Geoff Who, me? 01:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're going to call it non-free, then I don't think it meets the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically point 3a, minimal usage (because there is already a photo of a Burger Baron sign in the article, also claiming to be the logo), and point 8, contextual significance (because its omission from the article would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic). So, if the consensus of this discussion is to call it a non-free image, I am probably going to list it at Wikipedia:Files for deletion shortly after. —Bkell (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that large of an issue. You're right, it might be overkill, but I added it to the article because it included some of the unique, Canadian food items served (e.g. donair) by the reastaurant. I don't think the small article will suffer greatly if the image is removed. As the uploader, I've no objection to deleting the image. Cheers! Geoff Who, me? 17:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this is an unfree file, but it has a Fair Use rationale. I've cleaned up the tagging a bit, mainly to add the Flickr poster's name, but I think that FUR:Logo applies, since the logo is a part of the image, however small. Also, I agree that the work is derivative: thus the nonfree tag. Again, fair use. Need I say more? Geoff Who, me? 01:02, 2 October 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: convert to non-free. Next time, if you're going to add a fair use rationale, change the license tag as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Paolo De Stefano.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Tagged with {{PD-Italy}}, which says, "If this image meets the definition of a simple photograph and was created prior to 1976 and published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, then it was out of copyright in Italy on the date of restoration (January 1, 1996) and is currently in the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 104A)." But the description says that this photograph was taken in 1982, so these conditions seem not to be met. —Bkell (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Simple photographs are only protected for a period of 20 years from creation. The image was created in 1982, so in 2012, 30 years have passed since its creation, which is well beyond 20 years. - DonCalo (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This was copyrighted in Italy on 1 January 1996, so the photo is copyrighted in the United States for life+70 years. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is no proof that it was copyrighted in 1996. - DonCalo (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you have some evidence that the photo was taken before 1976, we have to assume that it was still copyrighted on 1 January 1996. Besides, we would also need evidence that the photo has been published without a copyright notice before 1 January 1989. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, simple photographs are only protected for a period of 20 years from creation. The image was created in 1982. If that does not satisfy you, another option is to convert to fairuse. He died in 1985, so no new free photo can be created. - DonCalo (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DonCalo, I think the point is that the Italian copyright may have expired ten years ago, but the U.S. copyright appears to be still in effect. I don't fully understand the details of the interactions between Italian and U.S. copyright laws, but from what I gather from the {{PD-Italy}} tag and Stefan2's explanation, all Italian copyrights that were still valid on 1 January 1996, such as this one, were declared to be valid in the U.S. until 70 years after the death of the author. —Bkell (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bkell, the question is of course if anyone understands the interaction between copyrights. Safer to give it a fair use tag then. - DonCalo (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I inserted a fair use rationale. Hopefully, this is a solution everyone can live with. If so, please remove the PD-Italy tag. - DonCalo (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DonCalo, I think the point is that the Italian copyright may have expired ten years ago, but the U.S. copyright appears to be still in effect. I don't fully understand the details of the interactions between Italian and U.S. copyright laws, but from what I gather from the {{PD-Italy}} tag and Stefan2's explanation, all Italian copyrights that were still valid on 1 January 1996, such as this one, were declared to be valid in the U.S. until 70 years after the death of the author. —Bkell (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, simple photographs are only protected for a period of 20 years from creation. The image was created in 1982. If that does not satisfy you, another option is to convert to fairuse. He died in 1985, so no new free photo can be created. - DonCalo (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you have some evidence that the photo was taken before 1976, we have to assume that it was still copyrighted on 1 January 1996. Besides, we would also need evidence that the photo has been published without a copyright notice before 1 January 1989. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is no proof that it was copyrighted in 1996. - DonCalo (talk) 21:50, 30 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Villeneuve Monza 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Tagged with {{PD-Italy}}, which says, "If this image meets the definition of a simple photograph and was created prior to 1976 and published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, then it was out of copyright in Italy on the date of restoration (January 1, 1996) and is currently in the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 104A)." But the description says that this photograph was taken in 1981, so these conditions seem not to be met. —Bkell (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to fairuse for his biography article. He's dead, so no new free photo can be created, and Commons doesn't have a headshot with appropriate resolution to see his face properly. -- 76.65.131.79 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Alboreto Imola 1985.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Tagged with {{PD-Italy}}, which says, "If this image meets the definition of a simple photograph and was created prior to 1976 and published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, then it was out of copyright in Italy on the date of restoration (January 1, 1996) and is currently in the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 104A)." But the description says that this photograph was taken in 1985, so these conditions seem not to be met. —Bkell (talk) 18:25, 30 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ancelotti.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Tagged with {{PD-Italy}}, which says, "If this image meets the definition of a simple photograph and was created prior to 1976 and published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, then it was out of copyright in Italy on the date of restoration (January 1, 1996) and is currently in the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 104A)." But the source [4] appears to indicate that this photograph was taken in 1982 or 1983, so these conditions seem not to be met. —Bkell (talk) 18:28, 30 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:The Hounds Below.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Likely owned by the band and not released with an open license. Eeekster (talk) 18:48, 30 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⚡ 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rosetterochon.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- No evidence of permission. Likely PD-old, but it is not clear where the source website got this from. Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 30 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: Keep Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sharon C Glotzer.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Flickrwashing. The Flickr image was uploaded today, but the image appeared here much earlier. Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We hold the copyright for this image that was asked to be taken, by the author, for public use. How can we prove it? Thanks -PFD (talk)
- See instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks -PFD (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2012 (EDT)
- Note: This image has received the OTRS Ticket and has been approved for licenseing under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL (unversioned) licenses. For users with an OTRS account please see ticket number 2012093010006881. So can someone please close this discussion? Thanks, --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks -PFD (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2012 (EDT)
- See instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 30 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 G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:James Arbuthnot2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The file has Commonshelper tags, but there is no reference to the source file. A cropped copy is used here. Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 30 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.