Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 June 29
June 29
[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Smaller copy here. Stefan2 (talk) 10:10, 29 June 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.
- 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: deleted old revisions (not by me). Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of the old revisions are completely different, seem to be unfree and should be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- yes the two strange images were vandalism--can some one delete them. (The Grant cartoon images are public domain published in 1870s and should remain) Rjensen (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Main image has new info for fair use.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 5 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Image of presentation.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Dubious own work due to other copyvios by the uploader, but I can't find it anywhere. Stefan2 (talk) 10:38, 29 June 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.
- 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 Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not clear if the dogs were drawn by the uploader or if they were taken from some unspecified source, see Commons:COM:DW. Stefan2 (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nelson's column taken, as noted in the image description, from a public domain photo by David Castor. Dogs adapted from dog images in the book ANIMALS: 1419 Copyright-Free Illustrations… selected by Jim Harter. Dover Books. ISBN 0-48623766-4. Pages 33-39. OperaJoeGreen (talk) 03:00, 1 July 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.
- 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⚡ 06:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See here: the image comes from the bank's web site. Thus, it is not own work. I would guess that the 3D effect makes it copyrightable, and in that case it should be deleted as replaceable fair use. Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 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.
- 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⚡ 06:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Share Distribution.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- See above: I'm guessing that this plot also has been taken from somewhere, although I'm not sure where it comes from. Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 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.
- 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⚡ 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The source claims that this has been made available under "a free licence", but is is not clear which licence it is, so it may be impossible to follow the conditions of the licence. Additionally, it looks like a magazine scan, so it is dubious if the blogger is allowed to publish it under a free licence in the first place. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Whom it may concern
Re : Free License, I have received an email from Liberty Media whom represent Lee Westwick and have given me permission to use the image from the Blog.
Regards Miss M Windsor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotstepperprincess (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions on submitting copyrighted material. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 1 July 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.
- 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, OTRS received Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Anna-Victoria-Wood-95.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The words "This is a fair use" contradict with the words "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License." Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I thought I was required to state it was fair use even though I took the photo? Because it's a publicly released and available image that is used everywhere, however I took the particular photo. I think the copyright status would belong to her parents, who have released the image to the public anyway. The image is necessary to identify Wood to those who read the article. Used on the basis that her parents want her image to be used as a warning against drug use. Not replaceable as subject is deceased, no negative impact on commercial viability. Alishakitty (talk) 03:22, 30 June 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.
- 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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted as a copyright violation on Commons: "Flickr uploader is not the real author, It's RICHARD HARBAUGH". —innotata 16:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded the file and Innotata is right, the image belongs to Richard Harbaugh who works for disney. my bad. delete away. Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 22:19, 29 June 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.
- 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: fair use Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The source is http://www.scnr.si marked Copyright © 2009 SCNR Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The original uploader did not provide the source, claimed it as "own work", and released it into the public domain with CC0 1.0. Voceditenore (talk) 05:38, 30 June 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.
- 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Patrick Leonard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- It says that this is a "Photograph in family collection". This suggests that the photo is taken from some family photo album, i.e. that it is previously unpublished. If unpublished, it is copyrighted in the United States for life+70 years, or, if the photographer is anonymous, for creation+120 years. No photographer is indicated and 120 years don't seem to have passed yet. I see that someone rotated this using lossy rotation. Please don't do this; use Exiftool or a similar program to get lossless rotation instead. Stefan2 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 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.