Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 August 13

< August 12	August 14 >

August 13[edit]

File:Marilyn Manson Holy Wood.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marilyn Manson Holy Wood.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Several hits on tineye lead me to suspect this was not taken by the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2011 (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:VeaceslavNegruta.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image does not fall into the categories of PD exemption. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:13, 13 August 2011 (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:Northampton Community College logo.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 discussion was: Keep; file tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Northampton Community College logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

This image is tagged as non-free. But is it really non-free? Is it not {{PD-textlogo}}? Fleet Command (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2011 (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 ⚡ 19:13, 13 August 2011 (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:Australian-Army-BRIGGEN.gif[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; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australian-Army-BRIGGEN.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

This file was edited and changed from http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=91. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that? Pdfpdf (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright for the insignia is owned by the Australian Government.
- The insignia was created some time in the period 1901-1914 for the rank of Brigadier General (Australia), which was abolished in 1922. The insignia continued to be used in the period 1922-1928 for ranks with other names. In 1928, the rank of Brigadier (Australia) was created. The insignia (depicted by File:Australian-Army-BRIGGEN.gif) was replaced by the insignia depicted at File:Australian-Army-BRIG.gif. To quote {{PD-Australia}}, the insignia for Brigadier General "was created in Australia and is now classified as being in the public domain because its term of copyright has now expired. According to the Australian Copyright Council (ACC), ACC Information Sheet G023v14 (Duration of copyright) (Feb 2008), generally copyright has expired as follows: ... ", all of which are satisfied. Hence, the insignia falls into the category {{PD-Australia}}.
- The depiction of the insignia for Major General (Australia), (note: Maj Gen, NOT Brig Gen), which is currently in use on wikipedia is File:Australian-Army-MAJGEN.gif. This depiction, and the depictions of all other Australian Army Officer rank insignia currently in use on wikipedia, with the exception of Brigadier General (Australia) and Field Marshal (Australia), are sourced from http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=91 and used under "Fair Use".
- I created the image File:Australian-Army-BRIGGEN.gif. I was under the impression that it satisfied {{PD-Australia}}.
- You seem to think it doesn't. If it doesn't, then at worst it falls into the same category as all of the other Australian Army Officer insignia depictions (except Field Marshal).
- In either case, it does NOT merit deletion. Pdfpdf (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I have modified page File:Australian-Army-BRIGGEN.gif accordingly. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2011 (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:Unity3d-thumb.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unity3d-thumb.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Unity3d is proprietary, not GPL (this is also documented on the Wikipedia article). Their logo is not a GPL'd screenshot. Beuc (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2011 (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:BBC World Service Westminster chimes.ogg[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; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBC World Service Westminster chimes.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Said to be public domain since "recordings of the chimes of the Palace of Westminster cannot fall under any copyright", for which no evidence is given, and which surely can't be true. —innotata 21:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to original non-free license. When I uploaded the file on January 31, 2010, I used the license {{Non-free audio sample}}. I was also careful to severely reduce the quality of the 14 second recording, and to include a detailed fair use rationale in the Summary. On June 25, 2011, an anonymous user replaced my license and Summary with the current {{PD}} license. I suggest we simply revert back to my original license and Summary.

The current license states, "This file is in the public domain, because although the recording was made by the British Broadcasting Corporation, recordings of the chimes of the Palace of Westminster cannot fall under any copyright." The anonymous user may believe this is so because the actual bells are over 150 years old and are owned by the British public, the tune is taken from the (out of copyright) Handel's "Messiah",[1] and the BBC never transmits a recording of the chimes of Big Ben. They use a live feed from a microphone in the bell tower and, when that is unavailable, substitute bird chirps or similar.

I used {{Non-free audio sample}} when I originally uploaded the file because I took the view that, as I didn't stand in the street and record this myself, somebody must own the copyright. HairyWombat 00:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have restored the original {{Non-free audio sample}} License and rationale (Summary) with which the file was uploaded. HairyWombat 20:40, 21 August 2011 (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:Joseph J Ursemal.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph J Ursemal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Said to be public domain as a work of the Micronesian government, but the website it's from says that the content is copyright by the government. —innotata 21:44, 13 August 2011 (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:Mig29 Polska.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mig29 Polska.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Given source shows a copyright notice, and the "permission" has been copy-pasted - no OTRS ticket number. Kelly ^hi! 22:24, 13 August 2011 (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.