Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 4
[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. File licensed under fair use. — ξxplicit 01:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader claims to own copyright on this image which appears to be the property of Columbia University, see e.g., this link JohnInDC (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Columbia School of Engineering was founded in 1864, thus making this {{PD-US}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that the logo was created in 1864 too? Theleftorium (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that the logo is PD. I've tracked down the images Zoroastrama100 used to construct this composite image and added an appropriate image summary and fair use rationale for its use on Columbia School of Engineering and Applied Science. If someone can find evidence that the logo is PD, they can switch the license to an appropriate PD license. —RP88 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for taking care of that. JohnInDC (talk) 22:35, 4 June 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⚡ 02:14, 12 June 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⚡ 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ivor Jackson's Toyota.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- ITN footage from 1986(?) would not be be PD as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:14, 4 June 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⚡ 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wigglesworldportal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Artwork/sculpture shown... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:53, 4 June 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⚡ 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Balog Stamp sheet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Delete: post 1977 postage stamp sheet used in non-stamp article with false copyright claim that is owned by USPS fails WP:NFC#Images #3. It adds nothing other than decoration to the biography where it is now used and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the existence of this stamp issue is clearly explained in the prose without the need to use a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 13:28, 4 June 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⚡ 01:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Peristeri stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image has been copied from http://www.stadia.gr/peristeri-f/peristeri-f.html. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Theleftorium (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no evidence of permission (F11); no source; no free use rationale. – ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 4 June 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⚡ 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image has been copied from http://www.stadia.gr/tripoli/tripoli.html. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Theleftorium (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no evidence of permission (F11); no source; no free use rationale. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 4 June 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Asteras new stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image has been copied from http://www.asterastripolis.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=145. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Theleftorium (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no evidence of permission (F11); no source; no free use rationale. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 4 June 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; solution offered. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Yun Bo-Seon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- An anon user has re-tagged this image as PD, and the tag says this works if the creator died 50 years ago. Since the image was created in 1960 by an unknown author, it seems unlikely that the author died at the moment of creation. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we assume the source and date in the image summary is correct, i.e. "Korean Ministry of Photographical Affairs" and 1960, and this image was published in the year it was taken then {{PD-South Korea}} might be correct (or perhaps on January 1, 2011 it will). Per Article 41 of the Copyright Act of Korea, copyright duration for works made by an employee in the course of his duties is fifty years after the work has been made public. The corresponding commons tag is little better in this regard. However, I haven't been able to confirm the source or date this photo was published. —RP88 (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its okay now I re-tagged with a Non-free biography-related media rationale. — ASDFGH =] talk? 16:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ASDFGH, since you're the uploader, where did you obtain this image? The reason I ask is that non-free images must include the source of the work and all available copyright information. —RP88 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 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⚡ 02:14, 12 June 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⚡ 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pat-Burrell.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The "Permission ... to use this photo on Wikipedia" restriction in the image summary is inconsistent with the claimed CC-BY-2.5 license. Looking at the revision history of File:Pat-Burrell.jpg, it appears that earlier today Ww2censor tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F3, then Nyttend deleted the file, restored it, and removed the CSD tag. Since there appears to no consensus for the CSD, I've listed it here to obtain a more considered review. —RP88 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional discussion is over at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Wikipedia_use_only. —RP88 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete; conflicted license, license is not compatible with what the source says (which has a non-commercial license on it), and the conflicted license requires permission to use outside Wikipedia. Further, Pat Burrell is an active MLB player who just got traded to San Francisco. He's already had 84 at bats this season. He's not obscure, and anyone can go take a picture of him and release it under an unequivocally free license, obviating the 'need' for this image (even if we don't have such an image in hand just yet). This is deletable under CSD-F3 and F11. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless license is corrected. Per the logs the photographer and uploader are the same person so they could go through the formal OTRS process and correct the license if they want to leave the file up. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, incompatible license, per Hammersoft. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a free CC license makes an image admissible on copyright grounds, regardless of what is said in addition. It's the same as if an image had a cc-by-nc permissions template and a cc-by template — as long as an image has a free permissions template, it doesn't matter if the image also has a non-free permissions template. Please note what Spellcast says in the deletion log for this image: "Uploader is the same person behind the Flickr account. Confirmed via email." Consequently, we don't need to worry about the license at Flickr. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I restored it because of seeing Spellcast's summary that I already quoted; I missed that until after deleting. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: there is no evidence to confirm the permission claimed other than a say-so that an email was received. There is no OTRS to confirms the "Uploader is the same person behind the Flickr account. Confirmed via email"? ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a particularly vested interest in the outcome here, but if it is deleted, could someone let me know? I'm using images of Burrell on a project in my sandbox and I'd like to make sure I'm using everything properly licensed. I'm not using this file right now, but I'd like to use a derivative of it if this FfD passes as keep. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 00:27, 9 June 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⚡ 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Borg2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- image uploaded today to flikr as by-sa/2.0/ then uploaded to wikipedia as fair use, needs more evidence of provenance as WP:DUCK MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- also note that File:Bjorn Borg 2007.jpg although unsourced came from the same flikr account, the only two images in that flikr account. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both: Both of these images look distinctly fabricated; in File:Borg2008.jpg John McEnroe looks like he has been pasted into an existing images of Borg and in File:Bjorn Borg 2007.jpg Borg looks like he has been pasted in against a tennis net background as there is clearly a cut out around his hair and the resolution of background and subject are obviously different. Neither image source page shows any metadate. Very suspicious. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 5 June 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⚡ 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sign, Does this meet the threshold for being copyrightable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that if I had commissioned the sign's design, I would be careful to get a copyright release or a "work made for hire" clause in the contract. As I have said in my edit summaries, if it were moved to Commons, I would bet 90/10 against its being kept. Of course a "fair use" claim could easily be made here on Wikipedia. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:26, 5 June 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.