Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 September 18

< September 17	September 19 >

September 18

File:Nintendo 3DS circuit board.jpg

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 ⚡ 23:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nintendo 3DS circuit board.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Google Images notes this image as appearing in at least 3 different locations. Clarification to support own work claim, needed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:20, 18 September 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:Thuravoor Pamba Road.jpg

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 ⚡ 23:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thuravoor Pamba Road.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Mapping style looks like a webmap of some kind (and not necessarily the uploaders.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:22, 18 September 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:CCGS Labrador.gif

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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:CCGS Labrador.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

If the photo was taken before March 31, 1949, the country of origin is not Canada but Newfoundland and Labrador. Regardless, we don't have enough information to determine the copyright status of the image either in its source country or in the United States. We don't know what year the photo was taken, and we have inadequate source information; the original uploader for the copy on en.wiki did not provide a source at all; the source information "Image by the Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca" was added some time later. Please see also: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HMCS Labrador..gif. Diannaa (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the ship wasn't completed until 1954 the first point is irrelevant (and I don't understand why, even if it had been built before 1949, that would make the country of origin of a photo of a Canadian Government ship anything different). If the photo was taken before 1963, I think that Crown copyright has expired; if later, permission is not required for "personal or public non-commercial purposes" - see summary at Crown_copyright#Canada. Davidships (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she still has her pennant number, so that suggests 1954-1957 under the RCN, while 1957-1962, she wasn't part of the navy anymore, so wouldn't be eligible for the pennant number. 1962 onwards as a Coast Guard ship, she wouldn't carry this pennant number. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, we do have enough information to determine the copyright status. The photograph can't have been created nor published before 1946 and therefore, unless explicitely released, it can't possibly have been in the public domain in Canada in 1996 on the URAA date. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that the problem with this one is not the date of the image, but that the claim that this is actually a Canadian Navy/Coastguard photo and consequently subject to Crown Copyright has not been proven. If that were to be established, then it would have been explicitly released to public domain as a pre-1963 image under Section 12, [Canadian] Copyright Act 1985. Davidships (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is hosted in USA, so Canadian law does not apply. We can only keep Crown Copyright photos taken before 1946 without explicit permission from the Canadian government, and only if they were published before 1 March 1989. See Commons:COM:HIRTLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(The rationale "created before 1946 and published before 1989" applies to non-Crown copyright photos. Crown copyright photos must have been published before 1946 to have entered public domain in Canada before 1996.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although a doubt about a publication by the government was mentioned in the nomination, it makes no practical difference for a conclusion about the U.S. copyright in the case of this photo, because it was not created nor published before 1946. It could make a difference about its present copyright status in Canada but not about its present copyright status in the United States. The Canadian government has not released the U.S. copyrights it owns in the United States on works that are out of copyright in Canada. We can hope that in the future the Canadian governments (federal and provincial) could declare such a general release, or make a declaration similar to that of the copyright officer of the United Kingdom, but we're not there yet. Until then, the present situation is that some governement organizations offer a number of their works for free use, but it is not generalized. For example, Library and Archives Canada offers for free use through their flickr account a very small number of works whose copyright they manage. Canadian Wikipedia users can help by contacting governement officials and convincing them. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt that tries to describe the correct position in the US. However, the sense or purpose in this completely eludes me, so perhaps someone could explain this (as it applies to Canadian Crown Copyright) in an article somewhere - in particular where US legislators/courts think that copyright actually lies with former Crown Copyright material which is in public domain due to specific statute. No need for any replies on this page, but my talk page would be fine. Davidships (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries besides the U.S. do not have a rule of the shorter term either. Why they don't and why U.S. legislators did not introduce one with the URAA may have to do with political, financial and cultural traditions and interests. Records of congessional sessions could contain debates about that. Starting points could be the references about the legislative history of the URAA and of the Copyright law in the U.S. Why U.S. legislators did not specifically exclude Canadian governements from some benefits of the U.S. Copyright Act is probably because they saw no reason to discriminate against Canadian governements vs. any other subjects of law (individuals, corporations) with respect to the ownership and management of their copyrights and other rights and assets they own in the United States. As long as a non-U.S. work got a copyright in the U.S. through the restoration provisions of the the URAA, that work got the copyright term of 95 years after publication, without regard to the fact that the owner is a Canadian government or any other subject of law, and independently of any expiration of its copyrights in countries other than the U.S. The Canadian governements never renounced their U.S. copyrights and the Canadian legislative bodies never demanded that they do so, by statute or otherwise. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unfortunate, but per the discussion above, I think we have to delete this image as not being public domain in the U.S. —RP88 ^(talk) 18:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted because of the comments regarding the lack of a rule of the shorter term. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 17 November 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:Raincrowdundertheweather.jpg

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 ⚡ 23:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raincrowdundertheweather.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

It is a photograph of a non-free work, a newspaper page. No evidence has been provided that the copyright holder has released it under the licenses claimed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:45, 18 September 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:The Hon Warren Truss Deputy PM.jpg

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 ⚡ 23:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Hon Warren Truss Deputy PM.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The copyright information at the relevant site notes that some material is licensed CC where a CC icon is visible. Looking at the source of the image, [1], there is no evidence of a CC tag, so this seems likely to be non-free. Bilby (talk) 05:19, 18 September 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:Fr. Rolfe III.JPG

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: Converted to Fair Use. Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fr. Rolfe III.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Source clarification required, was this published prior to 1971? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:09, 18 September 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:French Guichen.jpg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:French Guichen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Whilst this is clearly a WWI era image, a further clarification is required as to it's origins, The source given is a dead link. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've checked and the source given seems to be fine but the URL has changed very slightly. I just retrieved the image from Imprescriptible.fr image of Le Guichen. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Since as you say it is clearly a First World War image, and military at that, it appears to be a valid historical image, whether free or suitable for fair usage. If the latter, ping me and I'll write an NFUR for it. I've updated the URL on the file page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for this image to be free in the US, we need a definitive pre-1923 date of publication. Without that, it will have to be Fair Use (which would limit its use to the as-of-yet uncreated article French cruiser Guichen only). Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 23 September 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:GP ReCyko+ batteries in PB550 charger, GP Ultra alkaline batteries.jpg

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 ⚡ 23:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:GP ReCyko+ batteries in PB550 charger, GP Ultra alkaline batteries.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This looks like promotional artwork, not necessarily the up-loaders as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 18 September 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:G. tsugae lineage.jpg

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 ⚡ 23:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:G. tsugae lineage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

A book or journal cover whose copyright the uploader claims, without evidence, to be their own. Super Mario Man 17:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's clearly a copyrighted book cover. Even if the uploader were the publisher or one of the authors, they'd still have to release the copyright. The article it illustrates is at AfD also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 18 September 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.