Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 29
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 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⚡ 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:The Greek inventor of Frappe Cofee, Dimitris Vakondios, 1957.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- No real source, I can see no reason to assume this PD. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 29 May 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⚡ 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyrights of the videoclip would stay with production company (UTV Software Communications) or the TV channel that telecasted it (Zee TV). The license provided seems dubious. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:58, 29 May 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⚡ 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not of work of the federal government. Eeekster (talk) 15:40, 29 May 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⚡ 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Streptamer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Other upload from uploader was deleted because of copyright violation from a book. commons:File:Purification cycle (strep-tag).jpg Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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⚡ 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:MobarezTankOnChange.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- No author information, looks like a screencap. (Hohum @) 18:20, 29 May 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) 08:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nottingham Spirk logo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This file is currently using {{PD-textlogo}} as its license under Public Domain. The license states that "These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough" I feel that this logo is original enough and should not be under public domain. Can I get anyone else's opinion? WheresTristan 19:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, it's a stylized N and a S and a bunch of text under that - there's nothing but text (stylized & not) here Skier Dude (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Compare with the examples at Commons:COM:TOO#United States. Many of the logos there look more complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 31 May 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⚡ 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Farid-Khavari.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Previously published with no evidence of permission. http://www.khavariforgovernor.com/press-releases/ Eeekster (talk) 20:11, 29 May 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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nest Mobile Main iOS.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this screenshot. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a pretty good feeling I do since I just took that screenshot and it has my location at the top of the app. Pretty god evidence right there, huh? Steveketchup (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Taking a screenshot does not mean that you own the rights to the image; the copyright is retained by whoever owns the rights to the software. Equally, I can't take screenshots in the middle of films and suddenly have them belong to me. If your claim about the free software is correct, then the image can be kept, but it still wouldn't belong to you. How is the software licensed? J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nest Mobile Main iOS.PNG - Rationale added, please read. What I'm calling you out for is saying 'I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this screenshot.' Without even looking to see if this was a violation it was tagged for deletion, rather than the more recent edit of a non PD warning which (by policy) is what should have happened. People like you trolling this way make me (and probably others) want to quit Wiki altogether. Unbelievable.
- This was a non-free image, incorrectly tagged as a free image. You accept that. Possibly unfree files was a perfectly reasonable place to send it- if the issue was not resolved, it should have been deleted. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The file was tagged as possibly unfree which is different to tagging it for deletion. No evidence that the uploader created the software shown. Currently tagged as unfree but not used anywhere, so fair use isn't possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a non-free image, incorrectly tagged as a free image. You accept that. Possibly unfree files was a perfectly reasonable place to send it- if the issue was not resolved, it should have been deleted. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2012 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 6 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. — ξxplicit 01:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Large portion is a sculpture - date 2005 - no Freedom of panorama in USA for such a modern date. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is primarily a photo of the sculptor, Cliff Fragua, who happens to be standing next to his best known work. But I can see that you and I are going to likely go on and on about this sort of thing so perhaps I'll just take a wikibreak for a while, let you do your thing and then meander back at some time. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I've changed my mind, I am not going to take my ball and go home. I am curious as to what other informed editors will make of this. Although the statue is in the picture, the focus is on the sculptor. Carptrash (talk)
- Delete right half because of the statue but keep the left half because the article needs a photo of the sculptor. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The so-called "King Solomon Solution"? Cut the baby in half? [1] How about if I just remove the statue's head? That would make the statue pretty much unrecognizable. Carptrash (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ 1 Kings 3: 16-27
- Keep without modification. The sculpture is clearly secondary to Cliff Fragua, the main subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without modification. The sculptor is plainly the focus. --Lockley (talk) 06:21, 13 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⚡ 03:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sri Lanka Bus 138.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- A large proportion of the image is 2D artwork. And no FoP in Sri Lanka Sri Lankan copyright law limits reproducing copyrighted artworks and buildings placed permanently at public places or visible from there without the rights holder's consent to film and TV broadcasts only. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe this qualifies as de minimus; instead of looking at portion of the copyrighted work used in absolute terms, we should consider the intention of the image. Did the photographer want to include the copyrighted artwork, or was he just trying to get a picture of the bus? It's like File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg: the pyramid is featured very prominently, but it is unavoidable if you want a picture of the museum. Here, the point was the capture the back of the bus along with the number "138" and whatever the words mean on either side of it. The artwork is incidental. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the 138 is de minimus - I had to look twice to figure out that was supposed to be the focus of the picture. The ads are the main portion of the pic. Skier Dude (talk) 01:43, 11 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.