Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 4 April 6 >

April 5[edit]

File:Mirza Javad Gharavi Aliari.jpg et al[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: Kept File:Mirza Mohammad Hassan Ahmadi Faqih.jpg for fair use in one article. Deleted the rest. Dianna (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mirza Javad Gharavi Aliari.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Abdollah Javadi-Amoli.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Ali Asghar Rahimi Azad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Fazel Maleki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Khalil Mobasher Kashani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Mirza Javad Gharavi Aliari.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Mirza Mohammad Hassan Ahmadi Faqih.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).Green tickY
File:Mirza Mohsen Koochebaghi Tabrizi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Mirza Yadollah Duzduzani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Though all uploaded in good faith, it seems highly unlikely that the source website - which does state "Released into public domain (GFDL Licensing)" - is actually the author of these images. File:Mirza Javad Gharavi Aliari.jpg was cropped from [1]. File:Mirza Mohammad Hassan Ahmadi Faqih.jpg appears to be from [2] (their image is reversed, but it is larger). I'm sure that a dutiful search would find the other images as well. They were uploaded in good faith from a website that claims to be publishing them under an acceptable license, but that source website does not appear to be the actual originator of the images. B (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at least File:Mirza Mohsen Koochebaghi Tabrizi.jpg and File:Mirza Mohammad Hassan Ahmadi Faqih.jpg should be converted to fairuse, as they are dead, so no new free images can be created, for use on their biographical articles Mohsen Koochebaghi Tabrizi and Mohammad Hassan Ahmadi Faqih -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point #1: we would need to know who the actual copyright holder is for that. Point #2: one of them died in 2010 and the other in 2011. I'm not really thrilled with claiming fair use on people who were public figures in the age of digital cameras. The whole purpose of the prohibition on replaceable fair use is that nobody is ever going to try to find/obtain a free image if we are content to settle with a claim of fair use. Point #3: The fa Wikipedia (whatever that is) has an image of one of these guys at http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%BE%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87:IMG_0138.JPG . It's tagged as GFDL - I can't read this, so I have no way of knowing if the license is legitimate or not. --B (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would only apply "the age of digital cameras" to metropolitan regions of the western world, outside of that region, having a digital camera and taking prolific amounts of photos is a poor assumption. And even then, many people are notorious for avoiding photography, so living in the age of digital cameras in a region replete with such devices and casual photographers who take copious numbers of photos is not the same as having been photographed. And paparazzi photos would then be restricted as nonfree. Can you move the Farsi Wikipedia image to Commons? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have reached out to an English-speaking admin on that site and asked him to move it - I can't tell from Google translate what the attribution is nor even if there's an actual statement of authorship - I have asked him to check it out and upload it to Commons for us if the license is legitimate. --B (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are these all perhaps {{PD-Iran-unrecognised}} ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2013 (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.

File:Sovereign Base Areas arms.png[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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sovereign Base Areas arms.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.

File:Doorwarning-seoulsubway.jpg[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: Keep; per Copyright Act of South Korea documents created by any level of government are not protected by copyright. The subway system is not a government in itself, but the same can be said of any government-run service. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doorwarning-seoulsubway.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • I've tagged this as {{dw-nld}} but uploader has removed those...I believe this is derivative of a copyrighted work (the exit sign). Kelly hi! 13:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed it because I thought you were being malicious to not provide a discussion and just go for a speedy delete. Thanks for bringing in the discussion now. This rings of cultural imperialism though. You don't go around trying to delete English stop signs and English emergency signs do you? This is an emergency train-stop explanation sign. It is not copyrighted, and is clearly in the public domain. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is too bizarre - government-printed emergency exit signs are never copyrighted. Maybe you could go around deleting national flags in articles about various nations too, until the uploader proves that they're not copyrighted. (BTW, if the sign were copyrighted it would have a copyright notice on it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is only true of US federal government signs (and only a very few state governments, like Florida and California). The copyright notice thing has not been true for many years (1978?) and only applied in the US in any case. Kelly hi! 04:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kelly, what makes you want to delete it? I hope it has nothing to do with it being "foreign" or something? Do you think stop signs and ejection seat labels should be deleted too? This is not copyrighted, and I think you are being way too aggressive on this. I also combat copyvio, I just struggled with someone who kept uploading copyvio to a page. But this delete action is way too over aggressive I think. Nesnad (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't want it to be deleted, I want it to be correctly licensed. Kelly hi! 22:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks more artistic than the house which was found to be protected by copyright here (photo). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: House does not equal emergency train stop sign. This is by definition in the public domain, and delete nazi are frustrating. Sigh. Nesnad (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Stefan2(talk) just established, and mentioned elsewhere, this is a clear case of something explicitly not protected under the RoK copyright law, Article 7, #2. 국가 또는 지방자치단체의 고시·공고·훈령 그 밖에 이와 유사한 것. In particular: ·공고·훈령. Here's the English Translation, from Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_South_Korea): "Article 7 (Works not Protected): No work which falls under any of the following Sub-paragraphs shall be protected under this Act: ... 2. Notices, public notifications, directions and others similar to them issued by the state or local government." This conforms to the international norm. Nightspore (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But was it published by the 국가 or by a 지방자치단체 in the first place? Although the article says that Seoul Metropolitan Subway is owned by various governments, the subway system is not a government itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2013 (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.

File:Bhavya Gowda.jpg[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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bhavya Gowda.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Image has been flipped left to right - there is a watermark top right, the second line is probably "PHOTOGRAPHY"  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:02, 5 April 2013 (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.

File:Freshpair, New York City. Soho, NY.jpg[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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freshpair, New York City. Soho, NY.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Derivative work - photo of photos.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going out on a limb and assuming that the uploader works for Freshpair. If that is the case, they likely own the copyright for those photos. I will ask the uploader (in personal human language, not with a template) if that is the case and if so, to provide a statement of permission from her employer. --B (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because no response from uploader or OTRS. Copyright violation. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:16, 12 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_5&oldid=1144716376"