Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 8
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 17 February 2024 (add missing italics in discussion close to reduce lint errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
May 8
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 as G3 by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chowa001 claims to own this work. He inserted this image of a child into the Adolf Hitler article. Obviously, he has no credibility. One user has pointed out the photos are from www.dohacollege.com Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (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 image 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 as G3 by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see above, same reason as for File:Mohamad_El-Zein.JPG Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2009 (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 image 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 EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains a screenshot from The Simpsons in addition to a photograph; at least the former is non-free –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:01, 8 May 2009 (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.
Sourced to a "Post Card" with a license of "Public Domain"; this doesn't seem consistent. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mistaken use of the PD-100 tag: underlying artwork is ancient, but a separate copyright attaches to the photographic reproduction of three dimensional art. Obviously the photo is less than 100 years old; no evidence of free license for the photograph. DurovaCharge! 02:37, 8 May 2009 (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 image 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
False copyleft license claim. Source link states explicitly: "(c) Copyright Fameo Ltd. Use of Fameo jewellery designs for any purpose without obtained permission would be an infringement of UK Patent Law" DurovaCharge! 02:40, 8 May 2009 (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 image 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.
Kept; seems to be all in order. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid use of GFDL. Image cannot be GFDL as it is a non-free image User A1 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a screenshot of Pidgin (software), which is Free Software under the GPL license. It aleady had a {{Free screenshot}} template which indicated this. It appears the uploader mistakenly also added a {{Non-free use rationale}} template, which I've since removed. Tothwolf (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an image taken in Windows Vista, so it contains content which can't be licensed under the GFDL (as far as I'm aware). ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 07:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong, it contains no copyrightable elements of Windows Vista such as logos. And the software is GPL I'm not sure why someone is talking about GFDL here. Tothwolf (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See COMMONS:Category:Windows screenshots and browse Category:Free screenshots Tothwolf (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, we've considered that to be de minimis. But, I do have concerns that the other logos and buddy icons here may not. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would also fall under de minimis. If that weren't the case, most of the IM screenshots on both Wikipedia and Commons would have issues, including about half of the COMMONS:Category:Pidgin (instant messaging client) category. The smaller status icons for the various services were created by the Pidgin developers so those are certainly not an issue either. To me this seems to be a rehash of an old discussion, see this reply from Mike Godwin during the "Copyrighted Package" commons discussion. This seems quite silly considering this all got started due to mistagging caused by an unneeded/improperly used {{Non-free use rationale}} template. Tothwolf (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would uploading a screenshot taken in a GPL environment solve the issue? I believe the icons cannot be non-free since they are included with pidgin. I still concur with others that the fact that it includes Vista visual elements is de minimis, otherwise, it would be almost impossible to distribute windows screenshot without issues HuGo_87 (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need to worry about replacing this screenshot with one taken from a non-windows platform. This was just a case of mistaken tagging due to the original uploader mistakenly using a {{Non-free use rationale}} template for software under the GPL license. The way WP:PUF seems to work is files are assumed to be "bad" if someone lists one here (and 99% of them are deleted without much in the way of discussion).
As for the window decorations, there are still a number of screenshots on Commons of other free software that were taken on a Linux platform where someone came along later and cropped off the window manager decorations (minimize, maximize, and close icons, title bar, etc) because they looked identical to a Windows platform and someone assumed that somehow made the image non-free. Tothwolf (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need to worry about replacing this screenshot with one taken from a non-windows platform. This was just a case of mistaken tagging due to the original uploader mistakenly using a {{Non-free use rationale}} template for software under the GPL license. The way WP:PUF seems to work is files are assumed to be "bad" if someone lists one here (and 99% of them are deleted without much in the way of discussion).
- 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 image 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 R. Baley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claims that "only non-commercial or educational use of the file is allowed." Except it has been taken from a copyright Reuters image... see this US magazine article. Also see the image's duplicate, File:Susan-boyle-b 1.jpg.jpg --Madchester (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2009 (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 image 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 Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted before, user undid the removal of the image and reuploaded, claiming that it is their image, however there's doubt for this, considering the image is all over the internet, many results in google image search Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright violation: http://tineye.com/search/243fc0dc0b8bdcfc6c34cd6e51040952602fc970
- 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⚡ 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to get this obvious copyvio taken care of has clearly been the most complicated procedure I've ever done on Wikipedia. Anyway, User:Thirdship is claiming that this his image that he is releasing to GNU. Therefore I don't know why this bot is saying it is tagged as non-free. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to get this obvious copyvio taken care of has been one of the complicated procedure I've ever done on Wikipedia. [1] User:10thdayoftheweek is claiming that this his image that he is releasing to GNU. [2] [3] Anyway, this image is currently tagged as speedy deletion. (source : http://www.filmsandtv.com/i/a/jennifer_jason_leigh.jpg)
- 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.
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Jennifer_jason_leigh_at_awards_show.jpg&diff=288689185&oldid=288664818){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Jennifer_jason_leigh_at_awards_show.jpg&diff=287558499&oldid=286818174){kind=link}
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image is labelled as being created by the uploader. There is evidence of the logo being used for the college itself. Neutralle 11:28, 8 May 2009 (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 image 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author listed as "unknown" - if it's not uploader's work, we can't verify the PD claim. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Author is known, requested not to be named--Ken Durham (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that's a problem for us. If the image isn't yours, and we don't know whose it is, then we can't use it here. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, could you leave the image for a short time (3 days) well I get a different one?--Ken Durham (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that's a problem for us. If the image isn't yours, and we don't know whose it is, then we can't use it here. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like the author is anonymous, not unknown. An anonymous party can certainly release an image into the public domain. – Quadell (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Quadell for your support!--Ken Durham (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image found at http://www.teenidols4you.com/picture/975/4/allen_alvarado.html with no copyright release. --NrDg 16:36, 19 May 2009 (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 image 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mugshot is unlikely to be uploader's own work; no metadata or source information to confirm licensing claims. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crop of image at http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=270012145&albumID=2622&imageID=5152 --NrDg 15:51, 18 May 2009 (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 image 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely uploader's own work; looks like a TV screenshot or publicity photo, and has no metadata. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Metadata?--Ken Durham (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2009 (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 image 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 Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every upload by this user has turned out to be copyvios. Nothing to suggest this is not either. Mosmof (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2009 (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.