Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 March 19
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
March 19
[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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Derivative work of fr:Monument aux morts de l'Armée d'Orient et des terres lointaines. No freedom of panorama in France. Stefan2 (talk) 01:38, 19 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.
- 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⚡ 05:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Claimed to be self-made and tagged with {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, but the summary gives a Flickr source [1], which states that the photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license. "NonCommercial" is not free enough for Wikipedia; see WP:NONCOM. —Bkell (talk) 06:33, 19 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.
- 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⚡ 05:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mobile safety steps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This seems to have been taken from some kind of marketing material. For example, one of the images appeares here. No evidence that the uploader is the artist as currently claimed. Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 19 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.
- 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: Clean up and Keep for fair use. Dianna (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ntv7 Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This looks awfully complex - much more complex than a simple border which was found to be enough to make one logo copyrighted.[2] I'm not convinced that {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is accurate here. Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2013 (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⚡ 17:10, 19 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.
- 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; we don't have enough information to determine the copyright status of the photo. Dianna (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:GeoStarkweather.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- It says that this is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but it doesn't say when or where it was published before 1923, so there is no way to verify this claim. Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a million files that *might* have been in a dresser drawer from the time it was taken until 1982. I think this is splitting hairs needlessly. Given that this person was prominent in the community, this particular photo could realistically have been "published" somewhere in some newspaper or pamphlet or circular or church bulletin board while he was alive. It's a portrait rather than a family photo at a picnic. At some point reasonable judgement should trump hair splitting and we should spend our time trying to delete images far more deserving than this one. – JBarta (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that most photos out there presumably are private unpublished family photos. I have hundreds if not thousands of family photos taken by me and my relatives, and they are all unpublished. Press photographers also often take lots of photos of the same subject but only publish the best one. It would be unwise to assume that a photo has been published without indicating when or where the photo was published. Also, if the photographer's heirs sue you for using the photo and claim that the photo is unpublished, then I would assume that you have no defence if you can't present a publication of the photo in front of the court. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By that rationale, you'll be kept quite busy going through and nominating for deletion many many tens of thousands of photos that similarly don't have "proof" that they were actually published before 1923. You might as well also nominate for deletion millions of other photographs because there's no "proof" they were actually taken by the uploader. It's a pitiful and unconstructive road to go down. It helps no one. It protects no one. If, on the billion-to-one shot the heirs of Mr. Starkweather contact Wikimedia and say the photo is a private family photo and has indeed been in a dresser drawer until 1982, then we remove it and be on our merry way. There's no lawsuit, no court, no damages, etc, etc. There is no sense doing silly things to protect ourselves from non-existent threats. – JBarta (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V is simple: you shouldn't add unsourced statements, such as claiming that something was published before 1923 if you don't know whether it indeed was published before 1923. That's why we have {{PD-US-unpublished}} for unpublished photos. In this case, the uploader even wrote that it is a family photograph, and almost all family photographs are unpublished. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the photo gets deleted and you have made a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Be pleased with yourself and keep up the fine work. – JBarta (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V is simple: you shouldn't add unsourced statements, such as claiming that something was published before 1923 if you don't know whether it indeed was published before 1923. That's why we have {{PD-US-unpublished}} for unpublished photos. In this case, the uploader even wrote that it is a family photograph, and almost all family photographs are unpublished. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By that rationale, you'll be kept quite busy going through and nominating for deletion many many tens of thousands of photos that similarly don't have "proof" that they were actually published before 1923. You might as well also nominate for deletion millions of other photographs because there's no "proof" they were actually taken by the uploader. It's a pitiful and unconstructive road to go down. It helps no one. It protects no one. If, on the billion-to-one shot the heirs of Mr. Starkweather contact Wikimedia and say the photo is a private family photo and has indeed been in a dresser drawer until 1982, then we remove it and be on our merry way. There's no lawsuit, no court, no damages, etc, etc. There is no sense doing silly things to protect ourselves from non-existent threats. – JBarta (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this. Upload to Commons and use in this case? – JBarta (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the uploader is the heir to the photographer, then the image can be kept, whether moved to Commons or not – but since Commons has a useful template it's better to move it there. Is the uploader the heir to the photographer or only the heir to the subject of the photo? On the other hand, if it is a family photo, there is probably no way to identify the family member who took the photo nor the photography firm which was used if it was a work for hire. If there is no way to identify the copyright holder, then I assume that the copyright can't be enforced. This was shown in my country when a publisher was sued for publishing Mein Kampf but where the court decided that the current copyright holder is unknown.[3] I'm not sure what we would do in such cases. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to dig deep into the split hairs I suppose you can always find a little ambiguity... if that's what you're looking for. Look at it this way... this file was sitting peacefully on the server showing a picture of Mr. Starkweather to curious readers until you found it necessary to nominate it for deletion on a technicality. The file would have continued to sit peacefully if and until yet another editor found it necessary to nominate it for deletion on a technicality. In each case the only thing that does us harm is the "cure". There's no illness here. Never was and never will be. Just editors making little messes by trying to cure things that good judgement says really don't need to be cured. Anyhow, I say leave it. or upload it to Commons with one of those heir tags (or even a plain vanilla PD tag) and let it sit peacfully... at least until a Commons editor comes along with the next cure... – JBarta (talk) 01:12, 30 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.
- 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⚡ 06:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14#RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?. Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize there was a discussion about this. There are essentially no public domain or free images of Iraqi insurgents except for the ones made by Iraqis themselves. Most of the Iraq War articles only contain images of US troops and allies. I'm concerned about neutrality issues and hoped that having insurgent images will make the articles more balanced. However, if the result of the RfC discussion is now official policy, then I suppose there's no choice but to delete these.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:14, 21 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.
- 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⚡ 06:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14#RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?. Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 19 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.