Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 June 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 3[edit]
File:Andrew Helm, 2003.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Andrew Helm, 2003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Uploader reverted move-to-Commons templates, stating the image is not in the public domain and permission is not given for a move to Commons. Either uploader doesn't understand the licenses under which he/she has released their own creation, or uploader did not create the image. In any case it probably needs to go. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader is the legal copyright holder and creator of the image as can be proven with negatives in the uploader's possession. Uploader understood well the permissions given for the photo when it was used in a one time article about the subject. When Qworty/Robert Clark Young successfully had the article nominated and deleted through AfD, the process was hurtful to many involved. As such, it no longer appeared appropriate to the copyright holder/uploader/image creator for the photo to be kept by Wikipedia since Qworty and others presented themselves as authoritative representatives of Wikipedia. If the article in which the photo was used is ever returned to Wikipedia when admin and editors review each of Qworty's edits and deem the subject worthy of a return to a living person biography, then the legal copyright holder/uploader/image creator will allow the use of the photo to be reconsidered; otherwise, there is no reason for Wikipedia to hold onto this photograph.Taram (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you say you "understood well the permissions given... when it was used in a one time article", then with all due respect, you don't understand the licensing. Nothing released under GFDL or CC is for use only on Wikipedia, but can also be used by any number of other sources - even commercial ones - who freely reuse Wikipedia content. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello ESkog, Thank you for your reply. That photo was uploaded in 2009. I really do not recall now what was said or written then. Sadly, I do not have time to look up the information, now. Your message to me last night indicated that "If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it (the photo file) may be deleted." It appears that that was the direction you were headed when you wrote to me. I know you have a large task fixing copyrights, so if you sense that deleting the file is the right thing to do, then that is fine with me. Thank you! Taram (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you say you "understood well the permissions given... when it was used in a one time article", then with all due respect, you don't understand the licensing. Nothing released under GFDL or CC is for use only on Wikipedia, but can also be used by any number of other sources - even commercial ones - who freely reuse Wikipedia content. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader is the legal copyright holder and creator of the image as can be proven with negatives in the uploader's possession. Uploader understood well the permissions given for the photo when it was used in a one time article about the subject. When Qworty/Robert Clark Young successfully had the article nominated and deleted through AfD, the process was hurtful to many involved. As such, it no longer appeared appropriate to the copyright holder/uploader/image creator for the photo to be kept by Wikipedia since Qworty and others presented themselves as authoritative representatives of Wikipedia. If the article in which the photo was used is ever returned to Wikipedia when admin and editors review each of Qworty's edits and deem the subject worthy of a return to a living person biography, then the legal copyright holder/uploader/image creator will allow the use of the photo to be reconsidered; otherwise, there is no reason for Wikipedia to hold onto this photograph.Taram (talk) 04:51, 3 June 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:Matamoros-Brownsville metro area.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Originally uploaded with source noted as Google Maps, but then changed to a NASA news page. Appears that the Google citation is the correct one, in which case this is a copyright violation. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The top right corner has the same buttons that Google uses to switch between the map and satellite view. ALH (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google Maps uses images from various sources, including NASA. However, I'm not aware of a way to tell whether any given image was taken by NASA or not, so this will have to go away. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:54, 5 June 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:Reynosa-McAllen.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Reynosa-McAllen.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Another image which was originally sourced to Google Maps and then changed to a NASA news homepage. Likely copyvio from Google. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:24, 3 June 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:Hvnaerial112011.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hvnaerial112011.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Originally sourced to Google Earth, tagged for speedy as copyvio, and then the source was changed to USGS. The original given source is more likely to be the true one. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Google updated their map for that area in 2012, so it's hard to know for sure if it came from Google, however it should probably be deleted if the uploader cannot provide evidence that this is a work of the USGS. ALH (talk) 21:27, 3 June 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:Vmiflag.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vmiflag.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Source stated as a painting from 1964 when it says it was commissioned by LIFE magazine. Not clear that this is old enough to qualify for PD. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to fairuse the artist article can use this as a sample of his work, which all artist articles should have; since he died in 1997, none of his works would have expired out of protection. -- 70.24.245.196 (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Paintings were very often published somewhere without notice and/or renewal, so it should be possible to find some other painting which can be verified to be in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:56, 5 June 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:Sheikh Edebali.jpeg[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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sheikh Edebali.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Source provides no date or author for the painting. ALH (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, author unknown, unlikely to be contemporary with the person depicted for stylistic reasons, likely much more recent than would be required for PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 7 June 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.