Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:28, 15 January 2013

< January 13	January 15 >

January 14

File:Giorgio Galea.jpg

Per this OTRS ticket, the subject of this file is requesting the file be deleted. They have provided the following "nomination" statement: "This article has false data about me; Giorgio Galea." Tiptoety ^talk 00:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sole upload of user which he never added to any article or page. Seems unusable. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who is Giorgio Galea? The image doesn't look useful unless the person on the photo is notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:MegaCon.jpg

Orphaned. Target article Saint James Comics was deleted via prod, will likely not be notable any time soon. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 00:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australian release of Right First Time.jpeg

Invalid FUR--virtually the same as the standard cover —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dowjonesnews.jpg

Unused. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Was added to H. V. Kumar but it doesn't really seem to say anything relevant to that article. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:AB Mackenzie.jpg

Excessive use of non-free images: there is already a different image of the same character. See File:Clementine Ford as Mackenzie.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This image is needed. This actress is the most notable actress in the role of Mackenzie Browning. Nonsense. Ar re 01:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rachel Kimsey as Mackenzie.jpg

Excessive use of non-free images: there is already a different image of the same character. See File:Clementine Ford as Mackenzie.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this image isn't needed, because the actress is not notable in the role. Ar re 01:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeopardy 1978 Bonus.PNG

Fails WP:NFCC #1; replaceable by a user-made diagram of the bonus board (which is ineligible for copyright). RJaguar3 | u | t 15:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG

Image is not PD, does not qualify for fair use Ryan Vesey 17:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file is in the public domain, because Rizana's Letter was written to the Public in Large to disclose that she is innocent. The Letter was not addressed to anyone by her. She might have given the Letter to any third party but her motive is, to disclose the world that she is innocent. The Letter doesn't have any significant economic value for it is to be claimed by her legal heirs that it is the property of theirs.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant. Unless someone specifically releases something into the public domain, or under a relevant license, it is copyrighted. We have no evidence that she released it into the public domain. Ryan Vesey 18:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Then how it becomes after authors expired their works become into PD after 70 years.?HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That proves my point. Texts don't enter the public domain until the author has been dead for 70 years. The letter from Rizana won't enter the public domain until 2083. Ryan Vesey 19:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not one of the other creative works sort. She had written in mind public in large. She should have thought of every one/organization under the Sun would get her message and they would help her get out of the execution. That is why the letter belongs to PD under implied intention.HudsonBreeze (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Intended for public distribution" does not equal public domain. Books that are sold to the public (or even given out freely) are still protected by copyright, unless the author explicitly releases it into the public domain. I see no evidence of such a release, and I don't see how this file could satisfy NFCC #8; therefore delete. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not PD and cant see how it could meet WP:NFCC. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above letter was used in the Sri Lankan Court as a judicial record. That was why her agent was arrested and sentenced. I am sure any Sri Lankan Court records are under public domain.HudsonBreeze (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point the rest of us to a rule/law/source that establishes that those records are automatically PD? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works can be in the public domain for a variety of reasons. Examples: the term of the copyright has expired, the work was not eligible for copyright protection in the first place, or the copyright owner has authorized the public to use the work without permission or payment[1].

In the Rizana's Letter's case it may be into Two different sitautaions above;

1. The work was not eligible for copyright protection in the first place because it was addressed by Rizzana as "To Whom It May Be Concern" style in a Jail without any economic motive.

2. The copyright owner has authorised the public to use the work without permission or payment since it could be used as a legal testimony to enable her release; even she might have perceived, even if nothing would help her release, the letter would be a ever lasting testimony to proclaim her innocence even after her execution.

Other than that I have contacted a law firm in Sri Lanka and they confirmed since the letter was used in the Sri Lankan Court as a personal testimony to disclose her age alteration by the recruitment agent who was subsequently sentenced by the court, the letter becomes a court document and all court documents are in Public Domain in Sri Lanka.

We need some Wikipedians who are attorneys to analyse the situation.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be diplomatic, I don't believe you, and I suspect that not many will do either. No lawyer would ever make such a statement, and there is nothing in international copyright rules that says a copyrighted work can be made PD worldwide by the simple act of using it as evidence in a court case, there needs to be some form of release made by the person who made the work. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:PONYHeadquartersBoardRoom1.JPG

Fairly generic view of a conference room. Originally added as part of a gallery in PONY Baseball and Softball but now unused. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danila Botha Headshot2.jpg

This image has conflicting license tags. If it is correctly tagged as public domain, then we are lacking the necessary permission from the copyright holder. Lacking such permission, then as a non-free image this is replaceable and fails WP:NFCC#1. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is taken from the copyright holder's homepage. It is an image used for press and publicity purposes. How would I go about obtaining proper permission? Emvern(talk) 14 January 2013

You would need to get the copyright holder to fill out the form we provide at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and email it to us. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Hicks.jpg

Replaceable, so fails WP:NFCC#1. This was previously nominated for speedy deletion on these grounds but was kept based on the assumption he'd be in prison and inaccessible. According to the article, this appears to be not an issue any longer. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
-:Works can be in the public domain for a variety of reasons. Examples: the term of the copyright has expired, the work was not eligible for copyright protection in the first place, or the copyright owner has authorized the public to use the work without permission or payment[http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/ccl/aboutCopyright.html].
+:::Works can be in the public domain for a variety of reasons. Examples: the term of the copyright has expired, the work was not eligible for copyright protection in the first place, or the copyright owner has authorized the public to use the work without permission or payment[http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/ccl/aboutCopyright.html].
-:In the Rizana's Letter's case it may be into Two different sitautaions above;
+:::In the Rizana's Letter's case it may be into Two different sitautaions above;
-:1. The work was not eligible for copyright protection in the first place because it was addressed by Rizzana as "To Whom It May Be Concern" style in a Jail without any economic motive.
+:::1. The work was not eligible for copyright protection in the first place because it was addressed by Rizzana as "To Whom It May Be Concern" style in a Jail without any economic motive.
-:2. The copyright owner has authorised the public to use the work without permission or payment since it could be used as a legal testimony to enable her release; even she might have perceived, even if nothing would help her release, the letter would be a ever lasting testimony to proclaim her innocence even after her execution.
+:::2. The copyright owner has authorised the public to use the work without permission or payment since it could be used as a legal testimony to enable her release; even she might have perceived, even if nothing would help her release, the letter would be a ever lasting testimony to proclaim her innocence even after her execution.
-:Other than that I have contacted a law firm in Sri Lanka and they confirmed since the letter was used in the Sri Lankan Court as a personal testimony to disclose her age alteration by the recruitment agent who was subsequently sentenced by the court, the letter becomes a court document and all court documents are in Public Domain in Sri Lanka.
+:::Other than that I have contacted a law firm in Sri Lanka and they confirmed since the letter was used in the Sri Lankan Court as a personal testimony to disclose her age alteration by the recruitment agent who was subsequently sentenced by the court, the letter becomes a court document and all court documents are in Public Domain in Sri Lanka.
-:We need some Wikipedians who are attorneys to analyse the situation.[[User:HudsonBreeze|HudsonBreeze]] ([[User talk:HudsonBreeze|talk]]) 08:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
+:::We need some Wikipedians who are attorneys to analyse the situation.[[User:HudsonBreeze|HudsonBreeze]] ([[User talk:HudsonBreeze|talk]]) 08:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
+:::: I am going to be diplomatic, I don't believe you, and I suspect that not many will do either. No lawyer would ever make such a statement, and there is nothing in international copyright rules that says a copyrighted work can be made PD worldwide by the simple act of using it as evidence in a court case, there needs to be some form of release made by the person who made the work. <span style="text-shadow:gold 0em 0em 0.4em,lightgreen -0.4em -0.4em 0.4em,gold 0.4em 0.4em 0.4em;"> [[Special:Contributions/Mtking|<span style="color:red;">✍</span>]] [[User:Mtking|<span style="color:Green;">Mtking</span>]] [[User_talk:Mtking|✉]]</span> 08:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:PONYHeadquartersBoardRoom1.JPG]]====