Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 12

< October 11	October 13 >

October 12

File:MMMM.jpg

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

Claimed to be from [1] which is no longer available on Flickr. No evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rehearsal.jpg

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

The original revision is a "screenshot from the film "Rolling Stones Rock & Roll Circus", so that revision is most likely not PD. The current revision has no evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivan Panfilov statue.jpg

File:Ivan Panfilov statue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ivan Panfilov statue.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhino.jpg

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

Overwritten file. Old revision by User:Sacherman appears to be unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:DIS.jpg

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

Looks like a CD cover or something. Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BenzDerek.jpg

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

File:BenzDerek-83d40m2-croppedoutjslewis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File lists author as Scott Mitchell, but User_talk:Spunky72 has a signature with different intitials, a similar file was previously deleted, and this file just looks like a copyvio scan of an album cover or similar. 99of9 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:LennyMontana.png

File:LennyMontana.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Uploaded a long time ago, but image appears to be a professional publicity photo. No evidence beyond the assertion of the uploader that they own the copyright and are releasing it into the public domain. The claim is dubious. Jayron32 06:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apple Inc. logo.svg

File:Apple Inc. logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

So we need to clarify the status of this image. There are two ways that this could be PD: 1) ineligible due to not meeting the threshold of originality (my opinion); or 2) published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice (currently what is tagged). What does everyone else think? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See the other examples at Commons:Category:Apple Inc. logos, and in particular File:Apple logo black.svg. The differences to those logos are ineligible for copyright, and some of those logos were published on computers without copyright notice before 1989 (and sometimes also before 1978 I suppose). I've never seen a copyright notice printed on a physical computer. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, I (the uploader) don't agree that the Apple logo doesn't meet the threshold of originality for copyright. — cdwn 04:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC) not[reply]
    - I'm not convinced that the apple is below the threshold of originality. However, a simple change of colour doesn't meet the threshold of originality, and the same apple was published in different colours before 1989 without a copyright notice. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I didn't notice File:Apple logo black.svg. Is there any evidence that Apple has specified a color of #231f20 (as in the current file) for their logo? If not, then we can delete this as a duplicate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, my comment about color is not regarding threshold of originality, but WP:CSD#F8. If it's actually supposed to be #231f20, then we have to copy the correctly colored version over to Commons. If not, then we can simply delete this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not deletable per WP:CSD#F8 since the copy on Commons isn't identical. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, ignore the F8 part, what I meant was that if there is no evidence this is the color that Apple wants for their logo, then it can be deleted as having no educational value. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Surely the fact that this is consistently the colour that they use for official documentation would hint at that? — cdwn 21:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ram Charan Teja Photoshoot For South Scope In 2010.jpg

File:Ram Charan Teja Photoshoot For South Scope In 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is confusing. There are Commons Helper texts, suggesting that the image was taken from elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it doesn't say where. It appears outside Wikipedia before this upload, for example here. Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NTR Jr in Brindavanam.jpg

File:NTR Jr in Brindavanam.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

It says that the file was "transferred from en.wikipedia" but it doesn't say where it was transferred from. Appeared elsewhere on the Internet before this upload, e.g. here. Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prabhas At Rebel Audio Launch.jpg

File:Prabhas At Rebel Audio Launch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

It says that the file was "transferred from en.wikipedia" but it doesn't say where it was transferred from. Appeared elsewhere on the Internet before this upload, e.g. here. Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuit Blanche Metz.jpg

File:Nuit Blanche Metz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No freedom of panorama in France. This looks like an "artwork" although the description suggests that it is the roof of a building. Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Article L112-2 [[2]] on the intellectual property in France does not list the laser projection as prohibited. The description does not suggest that it is the roof of a building, the description states that it is a laser projection on the roof of a building Bava Alcide57 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A laser projection is light. See this page for information about protected light in France. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lighting of the Eiffel tower is protected because copyrighted, as stated in your own reference (which by the way is not a legal article, but a news article): the company charged with maintaining the tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design and in one feel swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. Again, light is not listed per se in the article L112-2.Bava Alcide57 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure what the difference is. If the Eiffel Tower light is copyrighted, then so is this light. Copyright is automatic and mandatory. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well the difference is that light works are not listed for an automatic and mandatory copyright (just imagine the nightmare in the entire country if so, there is lights everywhere). Then, authors have to ask for it when they feel necessary. On the Eiffel tower (private edifice), it is a permanent artwork so the authors (private company) assumed it was necessary, I guess. Bava Alcide57 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no such thing as "asking for it when they feel necessary". Copyright is always automatic and mandatory in France. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So why pictures of the Eiffel tower were in fair use before 2003? The Eiffel tower was lightened for many years before 2003 and it was ok to take and use pictures about it till 2003 when the company copyrighted the thing. Please, provide an evidence saying that copyright is always automatic and mandatory in France about lights, while the article about the intellectual property doesn't list it ... Read this end of your reference: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that. It is the mark that it is not automatic.Bava Alcide57 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you've got it all wrong. In France, copyright is created automatically when you create a work, and it won't expire until 70 years after you die, regardless of whether you want that or not. Unlike for example the United States, France doesn't offer any way to voluntarily release a work to the public domain. The light has been copyrighted since the light was installed, but I suppose that there were simply no lawsuits before 2003. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well I may be wrong. So I suggest you to remove any night picture about France on wiki as every light work is copyrighted (and as the law I provided you is not enough, what more than the law should makes it "automatic"?).Bava Alcide57 (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Moreover, I still wait for a reliable reference stating that light works are automatically copyrighted in France.Bava Alcide57 (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]