Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 14 September 16 >

September 15[edit]

File:Libbie at piano.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image taken directly from subject's website. Uploader claims subject of photo says that the rightsholder has given permission for the photo's use. Unacceptable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added a "No permission" tag to the image and notified the uploader that he needs to provide verification of the permission claimed - otherwise it should go as a clear copyvio. ww2censor (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2009 (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:WaltAndMickeyfx wb.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a sculpture of mickey mouse, and if I understand Freedom of panorama would be a non-free image. Not currently used in any articles, and no fair use rationales being used. Apologies in advance if I'm misinterpreting freedom of panorama. Optigan13 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If I'm reading that correctly, no one can post photos of any statues! I'm not a copyright law expert, so I'll have to defer to someone who can confirm whether this photo falls into that category. (Personally I understand about how photos of flat artwork can be construed to be copies, but a photo of a 3D artwork isn't likely to be mistaken for the real thing--ah, well, weird.) Elf | Talk 22:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, nobody can post a photo of a statue if the photo was taken in a country that doesn't provide a legal exception for this (many do, see Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama), and if the statue is still under copyright (many aren't). The USA doesn't have a legal exception for statues, but if the statue was published (read: erected/unveiled) before 1978 without a copyright notice, or if it was published before 1964 and the copyright was not renewed, then it is not subject to copyright. Now I've been in Disneyland Anaheim, but needless to say I didn't go check when the statues were erected, and I'm over 8000km away from it now. Can anyone shed some light on this? Stifle (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh: from the book "disneyland- celebrating 45 years of magic," copyright 2000: "Partners, a bronze statue of walt disney and mickey mouse, was unveiled in the center of the plaza hub in 1993." and from the book "walt disney Imagineering- behind the dream look at making the magic real." copyright1 1996 "Blaine Gibson came out of retirement to sculpt this larger then life bronze statue titled "partners" which was unveiled in the central plaza at disneyland on mickey's birthday in nov. 1993". Elf | Talk 04:20, 22 September 2009 (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:HollenbeckBH.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Skier Dude (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image has confusing licensing based on sources, which I'd like to sort out. The file's source location ucla digital library lists the image as CC-BY-NC-SA. However the image itself was created by LA Times in 1956, which did not renew its copyright on pre 1958 material per http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html. The building itself appears to be standing at 573 S Boyle Ave. Los Angeles, CA and in similar condition per a look from google street view, and is only used in a decorative context. There are also several other images in Category:Images of California coming from the same source, and I would prefer some definitive answer on their status before I either nominate for deletion or move to commons. Optigan13 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was created in 1956, and the LA Times did not renew copyright before 1958 (and you seem to have a good source on that), the copyright claim of UCLA is specious I think. In my opinion it is a clear example of copyfraud. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As IronGargoyle has pointed out, this image (and other similar ones) are PD for expired copyright. This seems clearcut to me (I'm the original uploader) -- the only room for doubt is if the photo was copyrighted separately. This is almost certainly a routine staff photo taken as work-for-hire, copyrighted by the newspaper, and copyright wasn't renewed. As Optigon13 is doubtless aware, nothing ever seems certain in the world of copyright law, but IB this photo (and other similar ones from the UCLA archive) are PD with reasonable certainty. The UCLA library just made a blanket "boilerplate" copyright claim for the whole archive, without sorting out individual photos that are PD (of which there are many). As they licensed the whole archive for free (but non-commercial) reuse, this no doubt seemed a reasonable thing for them to do.
Optigon13, I see that you've listed a batch of these that I uploaded that are all licensed (by me, as uploader) as PD for non-renewal. I haven't had time to recheck them all individually, but I was careful, when I uploaded them, to check for renewal dates at the Penn library archive site I referenced. So IB this argument will suffice for all of these as a group, if you would like to transclude it. If there are further questions, please let me know. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the previous discussion (linked by Philly jawn above), where the images were deleted. The Penn site wasn't brought up in that discussion, but with the two conflicting license assertions I tend to defer to the actual image source. I would prefer UCLA to update their tagging, or to have an OTRS ticket or other source on file for the exemptions to this and the other images. I'm not comfortable relying on our guess that they didn't go back and renew the individual copyrights in this case based solely on a one line entry on the Penn site. That being said, if the consensus is to keep this image, I'll go back and do a non-admin closure on the other UCLA/LA Times files I've nominated. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Perhaps we should keep these (and similar) images in the Wikipedia files, rather than moving to Commons, as there is a small possibility of a separate photo copyright that was renewed. Hopefully the Copyright Office will someday put photo renewals online. And the problem wouldn't exist, if the WMF weren't so obstinate about accepting CC-NC images as "free" (grrr) -- but I digress. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2009 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Lee Shing-Cheung CJ7.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of television screen, quite possibly of a copyrighted movie or tv show. Ferengi (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2009 (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:Diet_vanilla_coke_original_logo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 per the example of the original coke logo. Marked as a trademark though as copyright and trademark laws are separate things - Peripitus (Talk) 02:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Logo - Can't possibly be PD-Self.... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would lean towards keep as the Coke logo is PD due to age as the diet/vanilla is just text. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2009 (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:CPGB(ML)membersonmarch.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is on Flickr on the CPGB-ML photostream at "All Rights Reserved". http://www.flickr.com/photos/25164331@N03/3221059812/ I have asked the contributor to give evidence of permission to use this, but they did not respond. Fences&Windows 21:23, 15 September 2009 (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/2009_September_15&oldid=1208423143"