Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 September 11

< September 10	September 12 >

September 11[edit]

Image:JohnMorris2.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 I9 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a portrait available from other websites (such as http://www.tccsa.tc/notices/john_morris.jpg and http://www.visionforumministries.org/events/hwmc/001/speakers.aspx ). The user who claims it is his image is User:Jason Gastrich who has been permanently blocked for deceitful behavior and has a history of putting images on wikipedia that he doesn't own(there are many more). I'm skeptical it is his to give away given 1) the user's past, 2) that the picture is a portrait on other websites, and 3) that it is a low quality image that is replaceable. We66er (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2008 (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.

Image:Sir William Arbuthnot-Lane.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 F8 by Luk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of another picture, which is automatically suspiscious, but the low resolution and watermark is implying it may have been taken from elsewhere anyway. J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you see who the original uploader was? The uploader Kittybrewster has been outed elsewhere on wikipedia but that photo is one of his ancestors. He has created numerous articles on his family tree. Justin talk 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's one of his ancestors, the image has an Ebay watermark on it, implying the uploader doesn't even own the print, let alone the copyright. --dave pape (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photograph of a picture the original of which is in the public domain. The orginal subject has no descendants in the male line. He does have descendants in the female line. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator Leslie Ward died in 1922 so the 100 year tag on the image is wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, although I should think it was also published in the US at that time. Ty 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed again to {{PD-art-life-70}}. Ty 22:30, 12 September 2008 (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.

Image:Warwick School.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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be form here. The address given by the uploader to the school's website is now a deal link. The image or parts of it seems to be used several times on the schools website. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (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.

Image:BritneyJimCarreyFundraiser2oo8.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 I9 by Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another dubious Britney Spears image from User:Ogioh. Since this user's other Britney image from this event was absolutely blatant (even including the AP logo until he cropped it off) I have no good faith here. – iride scent 20:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your job is to say that the images licence is under speculation not to say one word about the uploader, and someone else changed the version so go bark up their tree.. but they say the new versionis free as the old one was so i don't know? Ogioh (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... English please? Stifle (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation, copyright violation. This image was cropped from this image, which is credited to WireImage.com. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)}

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.

Image:Tourist at Cadillac Ranch IMG 0024.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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image was tagged with the article copyvio tag and listed under articles at WP:CP. I am moving it here for investigation. The deletion rationale and subsequent conversation appear immediately below. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tourist at Cadillac Ranch IMG 0024.JPG (history · last edit) : Derivative work of a copyrighted piece of art. Ant Farm, the copyright holder, states that it "has pursued legal protection of its copyright in numerous cases in which photos of Cadillac Ranch were used in advertising". Thus, commercial use is forbidden unless you pay them a fee. It cannot be licensed under the terms of GFDL, and I don't think this project accept NC (non commercial) use only (but I might be wrong on this point). Freedom of panorama cannot apply either, since this is not located in a public place, but stands in a private property (even if visible from a public place).83.194.220.158 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(moved from Image:Tourist at Cadillac Ranch IMG 0024.JPG) : This is not a copyright violation. It was taken with my own camera on April 3, 2008 at the Cadillac exhibit off I-40.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, there is no doubt you took it yourself. But as aforementioned, the problem is that you took a photo of something which is copyrighted. Someone hold a copyright on it, and has clearly shown his intention of defending it. Even if you took the photo yourself and release it under a free license, there is still a copyright on the subject of the photo. I'm sorry. 83.194.220.158 (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2008 (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.

Image:HughieEdwards.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 F8 by Luk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Same situation: Image:AVM Stanley Goble.jpg, now on commons [1])

Image of an Australian WW2 soldier, from Australian War Memorial database. Contrary to what's claimed on the image page, the copyright status is described at the source [2] as "copyright status to be assessed" and "you must seek permission to reproduce this image". Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AWM website is confusing but I think the uploader was genuine and the image is out of copyright. See [3]. Photos are out of copyright after 50 years in Australia. This and the other may be permissible with a revised rationale. Am I correct? Justin talk 00:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks much more like a drawing or painting than a photograph. In which case, it isn't PD unless the artist died before 1 Jan 1955 (per {{PD-Australia}}). --dave pape (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photo but it appears to have been touched up. Does that make a difference in copyright law? Justin talk 07:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries, mere reproductions of PD works cannot be recopyrightable unless the reproduction has significant originality somewhere. Retouches are not enough. ViperSnake151 11:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing. This copyright seems to be expired as Justin suggests. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright has expired in any case because the pictures in question were taken before 1955, so the PD-Australia template is appropriate and I'm happy to add it. As for the AWM 'clear' status, this has been tested before - the relevant correspondence is at Nick Dowling's page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, thanks for the clarifications. I'd just recommend to change the tagging and leave out that "copyright clear" argument, because at this moment the database is not actually saying that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the penny's dropped - I hadn't seen that the status on the pic at AWM had now changed to "to be assessed". I agree we should simply remove the "copyright clear" template from the affected image(s) and stick to PD-Australia (which I've already added to Edwards). If I remove the "clear" template, are you happy for me to remove the disputed tag at the same time? Will do the same for the Goble pic. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2008 (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.