Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 17

< February 16	February 18 >

February 17[edit]

File:Pólo.ogg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pólo.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs).

source provided does not have the song, who knows where the clip came from Alan - talk 01:03, 17 February 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:37, 17 February 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.

File:Alexander McQueen Resort 10.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander McQueen Resort 10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Strongly doubt that these were taken by person claiming them as own work. Mabalu (talk) 01:39, 17 February 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.

File:Alexander McQueen Resort 10 Yellow.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander McQueen Resort 10 Yellow.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Strongly doubt that these were taken by person claiming them as own work. Mabalu (talk) 01:39, 17 February 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.

File:Alexander McQueen Spring '10.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander McQueen Spring '10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Strongly doubt that these were taken by person claiming them as own work. Mabalu (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These three images all seem to be official publicity shots, and I highly doubt they were taken by the person claiming them as their own work. This is the first time I've done this so please forgive me if I have done this wrong (and tell me what I should've done.) I tried to make sense out of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files but am getting more and more confused the more I read, and the templates for tagging them don't appear to work (maybe because they're on Wikimedia Commons rather than being Wikipedia files?). I know someone will soon put me right though... Mabalu (talk) 01:39, 17 February 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.

File:Point5 mag3 001.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Point5 mag3 001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Obviously a copyrighted magazine page Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 17 February 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.

File:20080602 Park Grill with Cloud Gate.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 discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20080602 Park Grill with Cloud Gate.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

3D art - Querying if FoP applicable Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a structure and FOP applies. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:10, 19 February 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.

File:20080602 Millennium Monument.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 discussion was: Keep; the file is tagged as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20080602 Millennium Monument.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Architecture (Post 1992 in US) - Article suggests this replica of earlier work? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:13, 24 February 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.

File:Oldbuckenham-30march1946.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oldbuckenham-30march1946.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:HolmesleySouth-1246.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Leiston-12June1946.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Debachairfield-15apr1946.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Not out of copyright in the US (three months too late) - it wasn't PD in the UK on 1 January 1996, and its copyright in the US was thus extended under the Sonny Bono Act. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While technically accurate, the linked email from the HMSO on {{PD-UKGov}} states " Crown copyright protection in published material lasts for fifty years from the end of the year in which the material was first published. Therefore, to use your example, material published in 1954, and any Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world." Who is it that the nominator supposes to hold the copyright to these materials in the United States if the HMSO believe that they are free of copyright and English law concurs? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I think, as I recall, that Commons considers HMSO's assertion that the photographs are in the public domain sufficient to use them. That's not a fight I want to pick, so yeah, if we update the licenses, I'll withdraw my nominations. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the question of whether Freeman's annotations make these derivative works, so that the Crown Copyright is not the only thing to consider. I'd say they were fairly trivial, but English law seems, if I understand it right, to allow fairly trivial efforts to generate a new copyright. I was thinking of moving them to Commons, but it would be good to get that question settled here rather than waste time. There's certainly no valid non-free content rationale for using these. They can assuredly be replaced if someone trundles over to Kew, or wherever the originals are, and gets copies. So the fat lady hasn't finished her aria yet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, there are no way those annotations count as derivative works in any meaningful sense. Originality? Skill and judgement? I think not. Having just assumed this was over, I (in retrospect poorly) suggested we were clear and now the original uploader is moving them to commons... So it's all getting a tad messy. I've merged the other listings into this one, btw, for simplicity.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to leave it like this. In general I don't like exporting our "problems" to Commons, but I don't think my wondering-out-loud constitues a "problem" in any real sense. Someone will be along and close this (most likely the Anome's useful bot will do it when the moved-to-Commons images are deleted) eventually. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. (If you knew me in real life, you'd know that "I think not" is, in fact, one of my preferred light-hearted rebuttals. Sorry if it didn't come across like that.) Ta, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above discussion — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:12, 19 February 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.

File:IMG 2108.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 discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 2108.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

3D art - Querying if FoP applicable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion of the same structure. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:13, 19 February 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.

File:Ukr aircorps.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ukr aircorps.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

This map doesn't seem to fall into one of the categories described by {{PD-UA-Exempt}} and may not be free. If not free it is surely replaceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:26, 17 February 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.

File:20080409 Blackstone Hotel Lobby2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20080409 Blackstone Hotel Lobby2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Interior design - FoP applicable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:36, 17 February 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.

File:20080409 Blackstone Hotel Lobby.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20080409 Blackstone Hotel Lobby.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Interior design- FoP applicable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:44, 17 February 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.

File:Alg mug-shots.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alg mug-shots.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

I don't think the NY Daily News is now public domain and I'm not sure about Dubai's copyright laws to be sure they've released it. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically every news organization that has written about this incident has used these pictures. It doesn't belong to the NY Daily News. So we need to see under what license Dubai released it. Quilby (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are release today by Interpol.[1] --Kolja21 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 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.

File:Mount view high knight.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: keep; converted to fair use and all issues resolved so the nomination has been withdrawn. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mount view high knight.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Is a photo of a (probably) copyrighted school logo, meaning that the photo itself is copyrighted as it is a derivative work. The image could possibly kept under fair use, though it would have to be removed from any user-space pages. Even better would be to upload the logo itself under fair use rather than a photo of it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After discussion with the uploader I have converted it to fair use. If the uploader accepts the new status of the image and the resolution is reduced, then it should be all sorted. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I the uploader accepts.Nascar1996 (talk) 00:35, 19 February 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.