Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 May 2

< May 1	May 3 >

May 2[edit]

File:Karylle.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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a professional promotional photo, a clear release statement would be required via OTRS for verification rather than relying on an anonymous upload with no source information. Fæ (talk) 05:34, 2 May 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:ERTMS logo.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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ERTMS logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Tabletop (talk · contribs) said "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License"
ERTMS says: "The ERTMS logo has been designed by UNIFE together with the ERTMS suppliers ... The ERTMS logo is protected and legally registered, both in Europe and abroad. Any unauthorized use will be strictly monitored by UNIFE, and abuses will be punished ... As a first step, you should therefore contact UNIFE and sign where appropriate a license agreement ..." [1]

Submitted by bobrayner (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the first instance the ERTMS logo could be describe in words:

The ERTMS logo is orange with white rays, a bit like the Japanese War Flag or the yellow on black BR AWS device in the warning position, which some clever dick deleted.

In the second instance, the ERTMS logo would be forbidden when used to indicate the equipment bearing this logo is ERTMS compatible, which is clearly not the case here.

In the third instance, the publication of the ERTMS in a magazine such as International Railway Journal (IRJ) would be fair use as it merely shows people what the logo looks like. Copyright laws permit such fair use.

In the fourth instance, since the number and size of the white rays is unimportant, the essence of the ERTMS could be redraw from scratch with a different number of white rays.

In the fifth instance, the bottom two white rays of the ERTMS look a bit like the two rails upon which trains travel on.

In the sixth instance, are the Japanese flag, and BR AWS copyright?

Tabletop (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a "fair use" claim could be workable, but that's the opposite of what you said earlier. Has this been discussed with the real copyright holder?

Those other images are images of completely different things; they're not much use as an ERTMS logo. This section is about File:ERTMS logo.jpg.

bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 3 May 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:Madras_Sappers_Stamp.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: Resolved. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madras Sappers Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Released in 2008 by User:Vprajkumar into publicdomain but he is not the copyright holder of the stamp, the Govt of India is. The postage stamp is still under Govt of India copyright. Under Indian Copyrights act, 1957, the stamp will enter public domain 60 years after issue in 1980, i.e. in 2040. AshLin (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved A proper FUR and license have been placed in the image description page, replacing the improper information there previously. As such, this PUF has been closed. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:08, 2 May 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:CHS.J2289.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CHS.J2289.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This image was tagged with the "Denver Public Library public domain images" template, which is being deleted because the library's image collection does not consist exclusively of PD images. The link to the page it was originally taken from is dead, but it appears to now be viewable at this page. Photographer was William Henry Jackson, who died in 1942, and I gather from the description that this image was not published prior to its placement online, because it is described as being taken from a negative in a historical society's collection. RL0919 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the linked site; "Copyright restrictions apply to the use of this image. For more information or to obtain a photographic reproduction of this image, contact the Colorado Historical Society 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203." Sven Manguard Wha? 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not take that text from the site as definitive. The site says that for numerous images, including ones that I have been able to confirm as public domain due their being published in the US prior to 1923. For example, this image was published in a book in 1878, a fact easily confirmed via Google Books. But their description page repeats this boilerplate copyright language. --RL0919 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 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:CHS.J3075.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CHS.J3075.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Like the image above, this was copied from the Denver Public Library online collection, and the photographer was William Henry Jackson, who died in 1942. No indication of publication prior to its placement online, because it is described as being taken from a negative in a historical society's collection. RL0919 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per site linked to in image description, which states copyright explicitly. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of these images have source links. Even if the images themselves shouldn't be saved, at least the links should be and re-used in the articles the images are being used for. ----DanTD (talk) 17:05, 4 May 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:AnywhereUSA-Penance.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 as F4 by Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:AnywhereUSA-Penance.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

I'm running an AfD on top of a DI here, as this image has no source (the DI) and is clearly a non free image (despite the uploader's tag) which I believe fails NFCC#1 and NFCC8. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:41, 2 May 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:AnywhereUSA-Ignorance.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 as F4 by Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:AnywhereUSA-Ignorance.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

I'm running an AfD on top of a DI here, as this image has no source (the DI) and is clearly a non free image (despite the uploader's tag) which I believe fails NFCC#1 and NFCC8. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:42, 2 May 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:Spin-Painting-23-mark-chadwick.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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spin-Painting-23-mark-chadwick.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No evidence that the uploader owns the copyright Eeekster (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is required? I am the copyright holder... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artymark8 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 May 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:FernandoTorres3.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:FernandoTorres3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

I have a very hard time believing that the free use release on this image is accurate. The quality is too high and there is no metadata. The image itself is also not in use. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:47, 2 May 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:CHS.1794.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CHS.1794.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Yet another image tagged with the "Denver Public Library public domain images" template, which is being deleted because the library's image collection does not consist exclusively of PD images. This is also another credited to William Henry Jackson, who died in 1942, with no indication given of publication prior to its release online. There is a comment about copyright applying on the library's page for the image. This boilerplate verbiage appears for some public domain images as well, so it is not definitive, but in this case it is likely to be correct. RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 2 May 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:CHS.J3074.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CHS.J3074.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

As with several of my recent nominations, this image was tagged with the "Denver Public Library public domain images" template, which is being deleted because the library's image collection does not consist exclusively of PD images. Credited to William Henry Jackson, who died in 1942, with no indication given of publication prior to its release online. RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - I hope you know for a fact whether or not this image is PD. There's another issue regarding previous publication; I just found a reference in one of the articles it was used for; "Gustafson and Serpico, p. 192: Much of the stone, bricks, and roof tiles were gathered from the decaying Mission, preservations efforts having not yet begun at the time of the station's construction." Any info on the date or that reference? ----DanTD (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I "knew for a fact", I would have stated that. Last I checked, this page was called "Possibly unfree files". As for the source you mention, it is dated 1992 according to the article's references list, far too late for publication in it to make this image PD. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't see the year in that source, so I didn't know. ----DanTD (talk) 11:05, 5 May 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.