This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SeanMD80(talk | contribs) at 23:08, 13 March 2013(release image under CC license). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:08, 13 March 2013 by SeanMD80(talk | contribs)(release image under CC license)
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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed as being PD (before 1923) because the picture is from "circa 1920". No evidence that the image isn't from 1924 or later. Public domain can't be assumed in this way, when in doubt we should assume that PD doesn't apply. Fram (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2013 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:33, 13 March 2013 (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.
Claimed as being PD (before 1923) because the picture is from "circa 1920". No evidence that the image isn't from 1924 or later. Public domain can't be assumed in this way, when in doubt we should assume that PD doesn't apply. Fram (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed as being PD (before 1923) because the picture is from "circa 1920". No evidence that the image isn't from 1924 or 1925. Public domain can't be assumed in this way, when in doubt we should assume that PD doesn't apply. Fram (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2013 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been created in 1917, but there is no evidence that the image was published before 1923, or that the photographer has been dead for 70+ years. In that case, the image has to be considered as still being copyrighted in the US. Fram (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted source website says "all rights shared", but the image appears on blog posts dating back to 2009; here's an example, so I am not sure we have the permission of the original photographer to host the file here. Dianna (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of course the image is from 2009, but not only on the blog posts you mentioned, but also on the original source. The photo, as far as I know, appeared for the first time here (20-01-2009), that means, in the website with the "all rights shared" quote. Its common that it appears also at Poemario por un Sáhara Libre, as that website use to add articles from other sources (but related to the Sahrawi struggle) apart from their own content. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image is currently on flickr as non-commercial only. Because it was uploaded here instead of to Commons (which has a flickr verification process in place), we have no way of proving that the license listed here was ever valid. B (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image doesn't match the given source at Flickr. Kellyhi! 05:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The file description page claims only that the creator agreed to the use of the photo on Wikipedia. ("Due to conflicting schedules, the author is unable to change the license to a Creative Commons attribution. The author has, however, granted me permission to use the image on wikipedia.") But Wikipedia-only permission is not sufficient; see WP:COPYREQ for more information. —Bkell (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} by the uploader, but the uploader also wrote "for non-commercial purposes only" in the summary. Non-commercial licenses are not free enough for Wikipedia; see WP:NONCOM. —Bkell (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of this work. I hereby release this work under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA license, for any purpose, commercial or not. Please do not remove this file. SeanMD80talk | contribs 23:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged {{PD-self}}, and claimed to be self-made in the description, but the description also says "w/permission of Ed Shimborske" and "permission granted by Edward Shimborske III for use on Wikipedia website". If this is the permission that has been granted, it is not enough. Wikipedia-only permission is not sufficient; see WP:COPYREQ for details. —Bkell (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to originate on a sky movie site (www.skyatlantichd.net/celebrity/feeling-frisky-daniel) but no indication of who photographer or copyright holder is. Does look to be taken by an agency photographer though NtheP (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged {{PD-USGov}}, but the source is described as "St. Paul Central High School website (government)." The St. Paul Central High School is not an agency of the United States federal government, and there is no evidence that this photo was created by the United States federal government, so this tag is almost certainly incorrect. It may be the case that the photo is in the public domain because of its age; the source page (available on Archive.org) uses this photo in a paragraph discussing the history of the school from 1866 to 1872. But there is no solid information available about when this photo was first published. Note: This photo is not being used in any articles. —Bkell (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with {{pd-1923}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}, but no evidence is provided that this photograph was published before 1923 (the subject of the photo died in 1940), and no evidence is provided that that the uploader carried out a reasonable amount of research in an attempt to discover the original source of the photo. —Bkell (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the caption in the Gus Elen article claims that this photo was taken about 1899. Justification for the {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag is still lacking. Ideally we can get information about the photographer and original publication date of this photo, so that we can make a solid public-domain claim rather than one that relies on ignorance. —Bkell (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention; uploaded during a time when I had no real idea about images and copyright etc.. Unfortunately, the author is unknown on the old image as indeed is the publisher. Have no fear, the image certainly dates to the late 19th century, and certainly before 1940. I uploaded a new image which is more fitting of his gruff personality and has (or should have) better licensing etc. A reasonable effort was made to ascertain the author, but it was typical in those days for all rights to pass to the publishers rather than the photographer who was often omitted a credit. The new image was taken in the early 1900s, so I think it would be safe to assume the photographer is now deceased. The publishers ceased trading in 1934 and the subject died in 1940, proof that the 70-year time lapse has occurred on both counts. I would like to try and save the old image if possible, so give me a bit of time and I will go off and squirrel around for some evidence . If I don't have any luck, I will report back armed with a delete tag. -- CassiantoTalk 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
_Carpenter.jpg){kind=link}
_Carpenter.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2013+March+13%23File%3ARobert+Ruliph+Morgan+%28R.R.M.%29+Carpenter.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_Carpenter.jpg){kind=link}
_Carpenter.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
