Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 February 1

< January 31	February 2 >

February 1

File:NUWI Quinoa Smoothie.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 ⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:NUWI Quinoa Smoothie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Very high quality image, similar to those found on product website. –Temporal User (Talk) 11:11, 1 February 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:Annupamaasinging.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 ⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tiny image, no metadata, possible screenshot of some show. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:06, 1 February 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:Anu choudhury at full bobal.jpeg

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 ⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anu choudhury at full bobal.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Looks like a screenshot of the TV show. Or owned by someone else. No metadata available. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:12, 1 February 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:KopeshwarTempleKhidrapurKolhapur1.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: keep per the research by Fut.Perf. below. Also, if you look at the front page of http://travelzunlimited.blogspot.in/, the blogger has a photo of himself and it's the same photo that Ace uses of himself at http://marathachronicles.blogspot.com/. They're the same person. We have a clear statement of authorship and license. --B (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:KopeshwarTempleKhidrapurKolhapur1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The uploader posted on my talk page this morning that there's a post on the source blog releasing these images under license. However, the license placed on the images does not agree with the license mentioned on the blog, and the blogger who released them under license ("Ace") may not be the same person as the one who uploaded the photos ("Abhijit Rajadhyaksha"). My feeling is that we don't as yet have adequate proof that the original photographer has released these four images under license, and am posting here for wider discussion. Dianna (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PleaseRead this on the right of blog "ABOUT ME Abhijit Rajadhyaksha Contact me at acemaverick355@gmail.com" Even the photo for uploader and blog owner is same. You can mail him for the details Hometech (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the blogger who posted the photos and the blogger who posted the license don't have the same name. The best course of action is for you to have the original photographer email the OTRS team using the instructions at Commons:OTRS. It is your responsibility as the uploader to ensure the licensing is in place, not mine as the patrolling editor. -- Dianna (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not severe enough to warrant a deletion. OTRS not working. I have intimated the author. And you think any photografers have so much time to go through mindless bureocracy? They are better off posting these pics on a thousand blogs than one article here. Continue your deletionist approach. I ll leave Wikipedia yet again. Hometech (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The licence statement was added by user #08324466627640731181 while the photos were posted to the blog by user #08859874456870844431. There is no evidence that user #08859874456870844431 gave user #08324466627640731181 permission to publish the photos under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, they are the same person, otherwise they would have fought over the license and blog ownership on the page itself. Is wikipedia sane enough to consider my email with the author-publisher as evidence? If yes I ll post that. If no, bleak future to it Hometech (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the copyright needs to send an email directly to the OTRS team. That would be considered adequate proof that they are releasing the images under license. Instructions are available at Commons:OTRS. Since you have already been in contact with the original photographer, this legal requirement should not be that difficult to arrange. -- Dianna (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's pretty clear the two blogspot accounts are the same person (the "Travelzunlimited" blog [1], run by "Abhijit Rajadhyaksha", points to the "Maratha Chronicles" blog [2], which is run by "Ace", as belonging to the same person, and "Ace" is the account that gave the license. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I have collapsed the four identical threads here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 9 February 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:Verdienstmedaille-der-NVA1.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: Delete. This image is still copyrighted – either by the artist who drew it or by the publisher Bibliographisches Institut, which still exists in today's Germany. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Verdienstmedaille-der-NVA1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Even though the GDR no longer exists, somone still owns the medal design. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:31, 1 February 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:Verdienstmedaille-der-NVA2.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: Delete. This image is still copyrighted – either by the artist who drew it or by the publisher Bibliographisches Institut, which still exists in today's Germany. De728631 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Verdienstmedaille-der-NVA2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Even though the GDR no longer exists, somone still owns the medal design. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:32, 1 February 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:Officer of the Order of Canada (female).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: keep as per Zscout370 below. --B (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Officer of the Order of Canada (female).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

"Copyright assigned to Library and Archives Canada by copyright owner John Evans" does not explicitly give a 'free' license. Also there is a concern the deocration design may be a Canadian Crown copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&lang=eng&rec_nbr=3603382&rec_nbr_list=3955667,4374247,2266346,3603374,3603380,3603383,3603378,3603382,3603375,3603381 has the information and it still says the restrictions of use as Nil, so would this be copyrighted free use? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, I'm inclined to agree here. The original copyright holder assigned the copyright (not just licensed the image) to the Library of Canada. The Library of Canada is now the copyright holder and they have released their rights. --B (talk) 16:39, 27 March 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:Shadow picture of Hyogo prefecture.svg

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 ⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shadow picture of Hyogo prefecture.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

I can't see an obvious free license for the source data, Anyone read Japanese? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly you can take one of the SVG of Japan maps, take out Hyogo from the map and reupload it. It is an easy fix. As for the website, it says feel free to use the map but no actual copyright or clear statement. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:37, 2 February 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:Med BHiA mr-B.pdf

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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Med BHiA mr-B.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs).

East German medal, Even though GDR id defunct someone still has rights in the design. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:39, 1 February 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:Spongelab Interactive Logo.png

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 F1 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spongelab Interactive Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Match to http://www.spongelab.com/spongelab/main.cfm?thePG=play with Tineye Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:29, 1 February 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:ECSN Logo, Retronix are members of ECSN.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 ⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:ECSN Logo, Retronix are members of ECSN.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Logo above threshold of originality for UK Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:34, 1 February 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 Marrs School.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: Keep. Most yearbooks didn't follow formalities at all in this time period, let alone renew them. I would be very surprised to find this was renewed. Anyone with contrary evidence may of course present it in a new discussion. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Marrs School.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Claim is that Yearbook was not copyright, but no further data provided.

It's however very unlikely the copyright in a Yearbook was ever formally renewed as such. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_September_5#File:Aldine_High_School_Facade_1961.jpg where the uploader said in a discussion about another photo from another yearbook in the same school district that the yearbook had no copyright notice. I'm betting $eleventy billion that if a 1961 yearbook from this school district lacked a copyright notice, a 1947 yearbook didn't have one either. --B (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, there is probably no commercial value in those yearbooks, so it is very unlikely that the copyright was renewed. Even if there was a copyright notice, the copyright presumably expired after 28 years. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 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:Vancouver 86ers alt logo.png

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: deleted. It could possibly be considered fair use, but there's no actual source given so no way of even knowing that it's authentic. If someone wants to take the effort of documenting the actual source and can make a reasonable case for it being fair use, it can be restored and the issue of fair use debated at IFD. --B (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vancouver 86ers alt logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Clearly a logo, so I am skeptical about a self claim being justified Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:39, 1 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kanefmlogo.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 ⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logo above threshold or originality? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:40, 1 February 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:IAYP Official Logo.png

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 ⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:IAYP Official Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Logo above threshold of originality, No indication given uploader is the designer of it, or has rights to license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:45, 1 February 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.