Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 March 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
March 7
[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The result of the discussion was: Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to Nthep for helpful research. Dianna (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:King Lear Peak.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Uploader claims this is their own work, but the image was posted here in July 2012, so I am sceptical. Dianna (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - also posted here in 2010 and username on that forum does tie up with info on uploader's WP talk page. NtheP (talk) 11:17, 19 April 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 Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Derivative work; we need to know who took the original photo and whether or not we have their permission to host the file here. Dianna (talk) 00:47, 7 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 as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This low resolution image may have been copied from http://cfda.com/designer/joseph-altuzarra. It's available at many other online locations as well. So I wonder about the claim to it being the uploader's own work. Dianna (talk) 00:57, 7 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 as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This was uploaded by a new user, JacobiteMacLaren (talk · contribs), who has uploaded 13 images so far - 11 of which are clear copyright violations. There's no reason to think this photo, and one other one he has uploaded, aren't ripped off some website. I just can't find which website it is taken from. The photo is that of a kirk at Balquidder, which is a well documented site. We've actually got a picture of it on the Commons already (and many more legit free ones can be found at Geograph Britain and Ireland). Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:03, 7 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 as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. This was uploaded by a new user, JacobiteMacLaren (talk · contribs), who has uploaded 13 images so far - 11 of which are clear copyright violations. There's no reason to think this photo, and one other one I listed just above, aren't ripped off some website. I just can't find which website it is taken from. The user lists his source as "paint", as he did in all of his other uploads. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:08, 7 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:Controversial Letter from the British Embassy in Dublin to the British Forreign and Commonwealth office in London.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Controversial Letter from the British Embassy in Dublin to the British Forreign and Commonwealth office in London.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Tagged {{subst:npd}} twice, but other users keep removing the tag. The uploader claims that the document is in the public domain, but provides no evidence of this. This is a British crown copyright, and it is not yet 50 years old. The uploader also claims that this is available under the Open Government Licence, but provides no evidence of this claim. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have provided the links requested showing the open government licence and the copyright notice on the original site (indymedia.ie) allowing free use. The original document was released in January 2000 to the public domain by the British Public Records office under the 30 year rule. Morna (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indymedia.ie is not the copyright holder, so Indymedia.ie isn't authorised to grant any permission whatsoever.
- The link to the Open Government Licence only tells that material available under the Open Government Licence is available under the Open Government Licence, without telling what material is available under the Open Government Licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. Someone else close this please, since I've never closed something here before. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 14 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⚡ 03:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a derivative of a work which includes copyrighted elements. As there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for anything but buildings, this file will need to be deleted. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 18:03, 7 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⚡ 03:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged with {{attribution}}. This photo was taken from http://www.fairmont.com/beijing/media/photos/. The terms and conditions page there [1] says (emphasis added), "All material found in the pages of this Website is protected under the copyright laws of Canada, the United States and of other countries. … You are free to download the material posted on this Website for non-commercial purposes, to store it temporarily on a single computer, and to print it solely for your own personal purposes. You agree that you do not acquire any ownership rights in any downloaded content. You may not distribute copies of the material for any purpose or 'frame' it in any site you create or operate. You agree to abide by all copyright notices, information and restrictions contained in any content on this Website." There is no evidence that the copyright holder has agreed to release this photo for any purpose, as claimed by the licensing tag. —Bkell (talk) 19:18, 7 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⚡ 03:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Swargaseema IFF.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Tagged {{PD-India}}, because it is an advertisement from 1947 and is therefore more than 60 years old. But it might not be in the public domain in the United States. The notification in the {{PD-India}} tag says, "a non-simple image can only be in the public domain in the U.S.: if it entered the public domain in India prior to 1996 (i.e., the author died before 1941 for most works or it was published prior to 1941 for photographs - see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights), or when, after that date, its copyright term expires in accordance with U.S. law." If the copyright term in India is 60 years, then this advertisement did not enter the public domain in India until 2007 (i.e., after 1996), so it would appear not to be in the public domain in the United States. —Bkell (talk) 19:51, 7 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: Keep, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Swargaseema.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a film poster from a 1945 Indian film. It is tagged with {{PD-India}}, but it might not be in the public domain in the United States. See the previous listing for details. —Bkell (talk) 19:54, 7 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⚡ 03:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:JCOA Records Number 1.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Tagged {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, but Flickr source page [2] says this image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic. "NonCommercial" and "NoDerivs" are not free enough for Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed. Its a 1968 LP cover - fair use only Victuallers (talk) 08:44, 8 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⚡ 03:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Tapatoast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Tagged {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. This is a user-created photo of a work of art. The art was created in 2006 (see Maurice Bennett) and is therefore almost certainly copyrighted. —Bkell (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Without Michael Bennett's clear permission this is a copyvio. Victuallers (talk) 08:45, 8 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⚡ 03:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probable copyvio Secret account 23:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an obvious copyright violation. The same file was deleted on Commons by myself. Russavia 13:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I find the copyvio claim to be less than obvious. The the comment on the file read "I took this scan and I give full permission to use the image anywhere. I originally distributed it to a few friends by e-mail in 2007 when it happened. It's historically significant and I've been meaning to add it to the Certegy article for years". If the claim is that the sender of the letter is the copyright holder (the letter has no indication of this), then this would seem to fall under fair use provisions - is that the claim? Can someone please elaborate? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "I took this scan" suggests that the uploader simply scanned the document. It seems that the image was published outside Wikipedia before it was uploaded here, so if the uploader wrote the text, he would have to send evidence of this to OTRS per the instructions at Commons:COM:OTRS. The image violates WP:NFCC#3b in that the image reproduces the entire document (every single word except for personal information such as a reference number). In order to satisfy WP:NFCC#3b, you would have to reduce the image by removing several of the words. Also, it is not used in the article namespace, so it violates WP:NFCC#7, and it is used outside the article namespace, so it violates WP:NFCC#9. Thus, fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 9 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: Kept for fair use for one article. Dianna (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lutfi al-Haffar.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a portrait of Lutfi al-Haffar, who died in 1968. It is tagged with {{PD-Syria}}, but the file description page gives no information about the date or photographer, so there is no evidence that this photo was indeed first published in Syria. If it can be established that this photo was first published in Syria in or before 1993, then it appears the photo is in the public domain in the United States too. However, at the moment we do not have evidence that these criteria are met. —Bkell (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The image appears to be an official portrait from 1939. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for contacting me but I just cropped it for the main page. I have no extra information about its provenance Victuallers (talk) 08:39, 8 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.