Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 25
[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⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BennelongCampaign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Derivative of a copyrighted image. — ξxplicit 02:08, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Millwall.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- sports logo; no source; if for legit club, unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk 04:03, 25 August 2010 (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: changed to fair use by uploader. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone tell me if French military medals are public domain? this is 1962 per description, and appears to not be public domain; thus it should be fair use? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source website says "© Special Tribunal For Lebanon 2010" - and this is not a UN document, it's a logo. Should this be fair use? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was formed by agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Lebanon. If this was solely a work of the United Nations it would be public domain. So the question that remains is: Is the work in question public domain under Lebanese law? I would be inclined to say yes. The Law on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property (1999 No. 75) Section 4 states: "The following shall be excluded from the protection provided by this Law... judicial decisions of all kinds and official translations thereof..." (World Intellectual Property Organization). The image in question dose appear on all documents published by the Tribunal. Therefore, I think it is more than likely that works published by the judiciary, and therefore this image, are public domain under Lebanese law. – Zntrip 07:18, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jet engine mexico.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I do not believe the Mexican government releases its information as PD, and the linked site has nothing so far as I can find about copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Felipe Calderons administration took ofice in 2006 all media internationally released for the purpose of economic or national promotion has been placed under public domain, to help circulate knowledge about the Mexican economy or national intrests in as many ways possible. See also: http://www.promexico.gob.mx/wb/Promexico/transparencia_y_rendicion_de_cuentas , for information which goes more in depth into the subject.
- According to {{PD-Mexico-NIP}}, it is not PD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The and conditions you a refering to applies to work from http://presidencia.gob.mx/. The photo i am using is from http://www.promexico.gob.mx/ which is a completely different website anministered by a different government entitiy, please see there own privacy policy.
- 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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2010+August+25%23File%3AHOCKEY+BUTTER+CUP+V+TUDOR+1+%28750+x+502%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- "Photo taken by TCC", TCC being Tamworth Council. The link shows that the current site has an all right reserved policy and it would be reasonable to suppose that the previous one did too. Not free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:11, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BICENTENNIAL PARK 3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- "Photo taken by TCC", TCC being Tamworth Council. The link shows that the current site has an all right reserved policy and it would be reasonable to suppose that the previous one did too. Not free. (This and the previous spotted by user Bidgee.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:12, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sirimavo & Aleksei.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- scan of old image, no evidence of being own work, Alexei Kosygin died in 1980 Hekerui (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SWRDB & SRDB.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- scan of old image, no evidence of being own work, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike died in 1959 Hekerui (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bandaranaike Family.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- scan of old image, no evidence of being own work Hekerui (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vijaya Kumaranatunga.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- scan of old image, no evidence of being own work, subject died in 1988 Hekerui (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vijaya & Chandrika.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- scan of wedding image taken 1978, no evidence of being own work Hekerui (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Richard Gotabhaya.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- scan of old image, no evidence of being own work, subject died in 1970 Hekerui (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wijeyananda.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- photo scan of old image, "new copy of photo" suggests not own work Hekerui (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jing Ulrich in 2010.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- License is PD-self and own work but message during upload is "Fair use". I think this image needs an extra look. MGA73 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy from my talk page to inform users that read this notice here: "The photo belongs to the person in it - Jing Ulrich. The Fair Use tag was a mistake, and the photo was intended to be free to use by everyone. How can I update the details of the photo so that it will comply with Wikipedia copyright rules? Kjosh2 (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)"[reply]
- I changed the license to match the information you gave. However I think the best would be if Jing Ulrich send a permission to OTRS so we have documentation that she is the copyright holder and released the photo as public domain. --MGA73 (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jon Van Caneghem.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- TinEye gave a hit and the image is web size. MGA73 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:KYLIE-SEXY-DARLING.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The picture on the box if probably not free. Also TinEye gave 3 hits. MGA73 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2010 (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: withdrawn for now per discussion at commons - quite likely not renewed copyright
- File:Central Europe, 814.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Can anyone tell well the copyrights were renewed? If not, this was published in 1923, and won't be free until 2024. According to [1], "the author died 70 years ago" clause only applies to published works that were first published post 1978. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See discussion at commons:Commons:Help_desk#US:_post-1923_but_author_died_70.2B_years_ago. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:EntrustToken1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This object has the company copyright on it, and de minimis doesn't apply because the photograph is primarily of the object. Nominated for deletion at commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the proposed deletion. This photo illustrates a type of electronic device. The logo is incidental. We have tens of thousands of photos of electronic devices, automobiles, commercial aircraft, home appliances, railroad trains and any number of other objects that include corporate logos. If you are proposing to delete all photos of objects with visible logos, there should be community discussion first. --agr (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I highly doubt this image was taken by the user that uploaded it. It looks like he or she took it right off the Entrust Web site. Also, the users's comment upload comment is "(C) 2007 Entrust, Inc.". – Zntrip 00:51, 27 August 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:EToken devices.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This image has a company copyright on it, and de minimis doesn't apply because the photograph is primarily of the object. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the proposed deletion. This photo illustrates a type of electronic device. The logo is incidental. We have tens of thousands of photos of electronic devices, automobiles, commercial aircraft, home appliances, railroad trains and any number of other objects that include corporate logos. If you are proposing to delete all photos of objects with visible logos, there should be community discussion first.--agr (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen problem: what is the source of the image and where is evidence of permission by the photographer? Hekerui (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my objection for this image only as it has a clear cut copyright problem independent of the logo issue. The original submission asserts a copyright by the company in the edit summary. --agr (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I withdraw my nomination, as this is really {{PD-textlogo}}. Sorry, Arnold. I would withdraw the nomination, but two delete arguments here mean that WP:SK doesn't apply, and I'd rather let the conversation end naturally. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The logo may be PD, but what about the image itself? No evidence. Hekerui (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right; if the uploader can satisfy the {{subst:nsd}} tag on the page, then I am saying it is a valid file. That is a separate process though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2010 (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. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This image has the company logo on it, and de minimis doesn't apply because the photograph is primarily of the object. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to the proposed deletion. This photo illustrates a type of electronic device. The logo is incidental. We have tens of thousands of photos of electronic devices, automobiles, commercial aircraft, home appliances, railroad trains and any number of other objects that include corporate logos. If you are proposing to delete all photos of objects with visible logos, there should be community discussion first. Also note that I received permission from the company to take this photo.--agr (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — The photograph is primarily of objects. As ArnoldReinhold, the previous user, said, the logos are incidental. In addition the logos are not copyrighted as they are composed entirely of words, despite the fact that they are in a fancy font. Therefore even though I would argue that de minimis applies to this image, whether or not it does is inconsequential because the logos in the image do not meet the threshold of originality. – Zntrip 22:50, 26 August 2010 (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.
US freedom of panorama is not relevant but Albanian FOP is, and it is even more restrictive than the US case. Copyright term in Albania is 70y PMA. None of this gets us very far without some knowledge of when the statue was made. The context of the statue can be seen here. How old is this building? I would doubt that it is older than the reign of King Zog. So, if the statue was created in the 20s or 30s, this is likely to be a derivative work. It could even date from the Hoxha period. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Teuta of Illyria.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Can someone tell when this architecture was built? Otherwise we have to worry about freedom of panorama license issues within the US, and have to put this as fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2010 (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.