Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Shortcuts:

This page is for listing and discussing files that are marked as available under a free license or public domain, but have disputed source or licensing information. Files are listed here for 7 days before they are processed. Files that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed here.

To list texts with copyright issues, please use WP:Copyright problems.

Instructions[edit]

Before listing, remember that files which are already marked unfree and used under fair use should not be listed here.

To list a file on this page:

I
Edit the file page.

Add {{puf|date=22 September 2014}} to the file page.

II
Create its PUF subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:puf2|image=File_name.ext|reason=reason}} ~~~~ (remember to exclude the File: prefix).

III
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:fdw-puf|File_name.ext}} ~~~~

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{pufc|File_name.ext|date=22 September 2014}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the file

Unlike Wikipedia:Files for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of a file. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of a file and contributions should not be added solely in those terms.

Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 7 days. Files that are accepted following this 7-day period should have {{oldpuffull}} added to the file talk page. If no objection to the file's deletion is raised, or no proof that the file is indeed free is provided, the file may be deleted without further notice after the 7-day period.

Note: Files can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or verifiably licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:File copyright tags for more on these).

Speedy deletion[edit]

Blatant copyright violations or files missing source or license information may be "speedied"

If a file is unquestionably copied from another website and no assertion of permission or fair use is made, the file may be speedy deleted under criterion F9 (formerly I9). Such files do not need to be listed here. Please tag the file with {{subst:db-f9|url=source URL}} and warn the user with {{db-copyvio-notice}}.

If a file is missing source, evidence of permission, or license information, place either use:

or

on the description page to put the file in the appropriate category. After being tagged for 7 days, the file will be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 4 or criterion 11 for images/media.

Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s). The templates {{subst:File source|File:file name}} and {{image copyright}} are made for this purpose, but feel free to write a message of your own. It is not necessary to warn the uploader about every individual file if they have uploaded several of such files, but at least one message telling them that files without source/license will be deleted should be given to each user.

If a file is indisputably non-free, and its possible use can comply with our non-free content policy, be bold and retag it as a non-free file using a non-free image tag instead of taking it to this page.

Please note that this page is not for disputing the fair use of already non-free media, but for the disputing if a freely licensed file really is free. Please take queries of this nature to Files for deletion or Non-free content review An archiving system was implemented July 2007. For older discussions, see the history pages. For all discussions from July 3, 2007 forward, see the Archive.

Holding cell[edit]

These files have been listed for at least 7 days. Discussions should be closed following the steps here. Files that have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

New listings[edit]

September 15[edit]

File:Army Men Gaming Series Image.png[edit]

File:Army Men Gaming Series Image.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Author claims that this is an original image, but in the source description makes clear that it is a derivative work of the cover art from the Green Army Men video series. For comparison, see [1]. This appears to be a close enough derivative as to violate the game's copyright. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a trademark violation in the article of Army Men with the use of Army Men III using the brand name without permission. I removed this only because it is not a real Army Men game produced with the proper rights and assets permissions. The game itself violates the Army Men trademark title by using it in the name. Since they have not properly obtained the brand name. What is the problem with removing a game that is not even supposed to exist since it did not have the proper permissions before creating the game and releasing it on here. They claim that it's the final installation to the Army Men series when it never got the permission to be so. That is a great reason to remove content that should not be part of the series article on Wikipedia since it's violating that trademark that they don't own the rights to. It's not a official Army Men game let alone the fact a legal game to exist on this Wikipedia article. Army Men III I ask for this to be removed because it is not a real Army Men game produced with the proper rights and assets permissions. The game itself violates the Army Men trademark title by using it in the name. Since they have not properly obtained the brand name. I am asking that removing the game since it is not even supposed to exist since it does not have the proper permissions before creating the game and releasing it on Wikipedia. They claim that it's the final installation to the Army Men series when it never got the permission to be so. These are some reasons I ask for the removal of this games content that should not be part of the series article on Wikipedia. Since it's violating the trademarked brand of Army Men. They don't own the rights to the game series and they never have. They have not even tried securing the rights by asking for them in order to create this game. It's not an official Army Men game let alone the fact a legal game to exist on this Wikipedia article. The game is a obvious trademark violation due to these standards they have failed to meet before establishing the game as the final installment.--95.14.122.102 (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

September 17[edit]

File:Queen anne.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Queen anne.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • No evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to the source file. - Andrei (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The file page has a url under summary section that leads to Pinterest, where the file appears to be copied from[2]. Most probably a copyvio, I'd say and prefer to nominate the image for speedy deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
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:Shriswara, outdoors in a candid frame.jpg[edit]

File:Shriswara, outdoors in a candid frame.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • It appears to me a copyright violation. Recently I've spotted and nominated multiple copyvio images of the subject on commons. On a search on en-Wiki, I found this, appears to be copied from here. It is also the twitter profile pic of the subject. Uploader DilSe786 may would like to add few words here? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 18[edit]

File:India Against Corruption.png[edit]

File:India Against Corruption.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Irrespective of the other image taken down from Commons, this file is also pretty clearly non-free. It was uploaded here on 18 March 2011. It is identical (including its size) to the image which had been previously published on indiaagainstcorruption.org by at least 14 March 2011. See Wayback Machine capture. Voceditenore (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Having said that. There is a similar version still on Commons: File:India-Against-Corruption-logo.svg. That one was uploaded as public domain on the basis that: This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. The file under consideration here might qualify as public domain on that basis, but it seems rather borderline. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I have nominated that one for deletion on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 19[edit]

File:Galland cigars.JPG[edit]

File:Galland cigars.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Unlikely to qualify of German Freedom of Panorama - needs to be in a public place and permanent. (It is possible by § 59 (English translation) of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, the Act on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, to take pictures or otherwise reproduce works that are permanently found on public ways, streets or places (e.g. squares, plazas) and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies.) Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Permanence is usually defined so as to allow for permanent exhibits. The Commons provides the useful guidance that: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." If the exhibit was intended as a permanent exhibit (i.e. not temporary), and is in a public place such as a museum, it would appear to me to quality under the FoP. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hchc2009: this appears to be a permanent exhibit Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Neumanns bunte Bühne 1.JPG[edit]

File:Neumanns bunte Bühne 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Unlikely to satisfy German FoP - and as it's on wheels, it won't be permanent Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Permanence is usually defined so as to allow for permanent exhibits. The Commons provides the useful guidance that: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." If the exhibit was intended as a permanent exhibit (i.e. not temporary), and is in a public place such as a museum, it would appear to me to quality under the FoP. Having wheels does not necessarily make an exhibit temporary. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hchc2009: this appears to be a permanent exhibit. The argument that this can't be a permanent exhibit because it's a wheeled vehicle is nonsensical - vast numbers of vehicles are on permanent display in museums world wide. Nick-D (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Neumanns bunte Bühne 2.JPG[edit]

File:Neumanns bunte Bühne 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Unlikely to satisfy German FoP - and as it's on wheels, it won't be permanent Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Permanence is usually defined so as to allow for permanent exhibits. The Commons provides the useful guidance that: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." If the exhibit was intended as a permanent exhibit (i.e. not temporary), and is in a public place such as a museum, it would appear to me to quality under the FoP. Having wheels does not necessarily make an exhibit temporary. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Neumann uniform.JPG[edit]

File:Neumann uniform.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

All the images above were taken with the consent of the museum (http://www.luftfahrtmuseum-hannover.de/). I received a personal tour and asked whether the pictures taken can be posted in Wikipedia, which was positively confirmed. Please advise MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Permanence is usually defined so as to allow for permanent exhibits. The Commons provides the useful guidance that: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." If the exhibit was intended as a permanent exhibit (i.e. not temporary), and is in a public place such as a museum, it would appear to me to quality under the FoP. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hchc2009: this appears to be a permanent exhibit Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dr. Al Khalafalla.jpg[edit]

File:Dr. Al Khalafalla.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Clearly a screenshot from a TV program, not a user-authored image B (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Khalafallaelhurra.jpg[edit]

File:Khalafallaelhurra.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Clearly a screenshot from a TV program, not a user-authored image B (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:PaperworkDeluxe.jpg[edit]

File:PaperworkDeluxe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Cover fails NFCC. Deluxe does not differ greatly from standard artwork, and would be described in few words in article, which was not specified in summer or licensing. livelikemusic my talk page! 17:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 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 17:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:RAID LP Cut.png[edit]

File:RAID LP Cut.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Album cover. The background image pops up all over Tineye going back to 2008. Uploader claims this as Own Work CrowCaw 23:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 20[edit]

File:TiranaCollage.jpg[edit]

File:TiranaCollage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:SOS tech details.jpg[edit]

File:SOS tech details.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

September 21[edit]

File:Dragon_Cliffs,_Nunavut.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT 22:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dragon Cliffs, Nunavut.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

I'm the photographer of this image of Dragon Cliffs. The source indicated for this image is incorrect and not the original one. The original web page from which the image was obtained no longer exists, but can be seen archived at [3]. The original license stated at the bottom of that page pre-dates Creative Commons (1996), but I'd be fine with a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial license if that would allow it to be maintained on Wikipedia. If the image attribution can not be fixed, the image should be deleted as it is a violation of the original copyright license stated on that page. 140.184.130.215 (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

September 22[edit]

Footer[edit]

Today is September 22 2014. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 September 22 -- (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:puf log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===September 22===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Possibly unfree files page (the one you're on now) work.