Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 December 27
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) at 07:34, 27 July 2022 (Fix font tag lint errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
December 27
[edit]File:Shatili, Georgia.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Shatili, Georgia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image does not seem to fall into any of the categories that would make it public domain in Georgia. Kelly hi! 02:59, 27 December 2010 (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⚡ 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Svetifr1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image does not seem to fall into any of the categories which would make it public domain in Georgia. Kelly hi! 03:01, 27 December 2010 (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: delete. There seems to be no evidence that what is claimed is true, and even the uploader seems unsure about it. Thus the safest course of action is to delete it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image does not seem to fall into any of the categories which would make it public domain in Georgia. Kelly hi! 03:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I uploaded this image in August 2008, I said that I believed it qualified under Georgia's copyright exemption for "a representation of an official symbol of state (the country's national anthem)" because it's a montage of screen shots from a "music video" version of the Georgian national anthem. Given the experience I've gained on Wikipedia in the 2+ years since I uploaded this file, I'll concede that I'm not as confident about this rationale now as I was back then. If the consensus is that this material does not in fact qualify as free per {{PD-GE-exempt}}, might it (or perhaps a trimmed-down and/or size-reduced version) qualify for fair use instead? Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so my intent is unambiguous: I challenge the "unfree" claim and assert that this image does qualify under Georgia's copyright exemption for "official symbols of state" — since the screen shots comprising this montage are taken from a music video representation of the Georgian national anthem (the anthem is one of the things specifically listed in {{PD-GE-exempt}}, item 1(b), as a work to which Georgia's copyright law does not apply). Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:10, 7 January 2011 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:19, 3 January 2011 (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⚡ 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Beargrylls3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Looks very much like a publicity shot, no information on meta-data. Found elsewhere on the web. J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2010 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Said-akl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The subject was born in 1912, - I don't see how this can meet the criteria "This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years." Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong licensing fixed. It is a historic image that qualifies as fair use since it is itself the subject of the article.--Propaganda328 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:19, 3 January 2011 (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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- same image available on a myriad number of websites e.g. [1], [2] NtheP (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2010 (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⚡ 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Punjabigirl3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I cannot find the original image, but it is clearly from the same set as this image. The uploader has had many images deleted (almost certainly due to copyright problems), in particular File:Punjabigirl1.jpg and File:Punjabigirl2.jpg, both of which were also claimed to be photos of their "cousin sister" in rural Punjab just like this image. O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- O Fenian is right, the image probaly comes from the [[3]] site. Wipsenade (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Avro Arrow- Trenton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Not public domain in Canada unless taken prior to 1949. Kelly hi! 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I inherited a flock of photos from an Avro collector, including this one, which was actually originally Avro Aircraft Ltd. so I can rewrite this as my own collection and I will release it in the public domain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Content from subsequent PUF nomination (2011 January 1) consolidated below. (Second PUF nomination was created while this one still unresolved.) TheFeds 05:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that this is from a website with the terms "Non-commercial Reproduction Information...". MGA73 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I own the original rights to this image from my book: Avrocar and I am releasing the image as public domain. There are myriad images of the original around. FWiW, I am now removing the tag. Bzuk (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Please do not remove PUI templates until the the discussion is over.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bzuk, you need to fill out the source and author fields with a bit more information—specifically, identify who gave you the photo, and who the author is (and/or who commissioned the photo, in the case of a work for hire). By listing yourself as author of a non-artistic reproduction of a photograph you're effectively saying "I took the photo", which I don't believe is what you meant to imply. According to this, similar photographs were taken by BGen R. M. Cox (unclear if they were taken in an official capacity). Is that also the source you had in mind?
In that file, you've also got a copyright statement from the DND, but no assertion it was a DND photo. Do you mean to say that the "former Avro collector" got it from the DND and then gave you his collection? In that case, there would be a fair possibility he never owned the rights to the photograph, and therefore couldn't legally transfer copyright to you.
On Wikipedia, it's necessary for the photo to be free in the U.S. (on Wikimedia Commons, it also has to be free in the country of origin, presumably Canada in this case). You can either show that you have the rights and can release them (try WP:CONSENT; see the message on User talk:Bzuk), or you can show that it's in the public domain in the U.S.. The trouble with the latter is, although the Canadian Crown copyright will likely have expired (50 years after the end of 1959, if first published in 1959 in Canada), works originally published outside of the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 and not in the public domain in the original country by 1996 are copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years after publication (i.e. until at least the beginning of 2055).
(There's also the option of using an image under fair use, but due to WP:NFC, I don't think it will apply here.)
On an unrelated note, if you do have the rights to the image, any chance you could upload it in a higher-quality form? (There are some colour defects, perhaps due to saving in a lossy format at some point.) I found an example here that's cropped differently, but looks to be the same shot. TheFeds 02:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further discussion of possible resolutions at User talk:Bzuk#Avro Arrow pictures. TheFeds 04:53, 3 January 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:MuralSouthLakeTahoeCA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Derivative work. Kelly hi! 17:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Photographs of buildings and artworks in public spaces: Those are derivative works, but they may be OK, if the artwork is permanently installed"....which it is. Vidor (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the US, freedom of panorama only applies to buildings, not artworks, see here. Kelly hi! 14:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Photographs of buildings and artworks in public spaces: Those are derivative works, but they may be OK, if the artwork is permanently installed"....which it is. Vidor (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. You must be very proud. Good job making Wikipedia worse. Vidor (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2011 (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⚡ 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Patsy Ann Juneau.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Derivative work. Kelly hi! 18:09, 27 December 2010 (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⚡ 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Template for files from FDF was deleted from Commons. Derivative works or commercial use possibly not allowed. A333 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2010 (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, file licensed under fair use. — ξxplicit 02:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Photograph is of copyrighted booklet cover; uploader has made no assertion to being copyright holder of booklet's artwork. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous license was incorrect (done by me, back when I obviously didn't know what I was doing). I have redone the image as a scan rather than a photo, and I have redone the license as a fair use license of a poster for an event, which is essentially what a tour booklet cover is. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:19, 3 January 2011 (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⚡ 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Text (Only For Wikipedia and MNFT FC uses) and license is not compatible. Same problem with most of the other uploads by User:Mnftfc [4]. Also - does uploader have the copyright? MGA73 (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (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⚡ 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:K15dux.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This promotional image is copyrighted by Channel 4 and/or Endemol. The full image isn't displayed on JJ Bird's Channel 4 profile [5] but a cropped version is, and the full image features on many other sites, e.g. [6][7] It's definitely not a free image. AnemoneProjectors 22:31, 27 December 2010 (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⚡ 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kubbuteo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Apparently derivative work by uploader, no source given for original. Kelly hi! 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also File:Kubb350px.JPG and File:360px-Kubb.jpeg. Kelly hi! 23:01, 27 December 2010 (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.