Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 19
May 19
[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 by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image was taken from Flickr, where it is "All rights reserved". See http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamran2171/2300681962/ Fences and windows (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible that the Flickr user had uploaded the image under a GFDL-compatible license but later changed it. Unfortunately, since Flickr does not keep a log of license changes, we have no way of telling if this is true - unless the Wayback Machine happened to crawl the image page at the right time. It's also entirely possible that Sansonic (talk · contribs) and the Flickr user "kamran2171" are the same person. --Ixfd64 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sansonic is most likely British, while the Flickr user is taking photos in Karachi. They call themselves Kamran; Sansonic wrote "Cameron". All of the photos on http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamran2171/ are All rights reserved. Nothing on Internet Archive. Fences and windows (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I find it highly unlikely that the Flickr uploader revoked the free license between May 18, when the image was uploaded to Wikipedia, and today, May 19. --Mosmof (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Flickr doesn't have GFDL, it only has the CC 2.0 licenses. Delete unless permission verified. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 27 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source for the image given on the web page it was uploaded from, and I doubt very much that this is a contemporary portrait as stated. It looks modern to me. Wikipedia should not state that this is a contemporary likeness unless it can be shown that it is. RobertG ♬ talk 07:51, 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo by Tim Dominick of The State here. 66.57.188.49 (talk) 09:23, 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 Closedmouth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image is by Juan Blas from the Daily Gamecock here. Uploader does not claim to be Juan Blas nor does uploader credit Juan Blas. Ripping off a kid who works at a school newspaper is disgusting and shameful. 66.57.188.49 (talk) 09:30, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other military-related uploads from this user were copyright violations. The lack of metadata on this one, as well as the similarity in subject matter, leads me to believe this one is too - but I can't find the original source, so listing here instead of speedying. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:46, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User claims to have taken picture themselves, but image is thumbnail sized and available at http://www.ramadhan.u-net.com/images/noor_msq.jpg. Otterathome (talk) 13:01, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image is thumbnail sized and appears to be a duplicate violation, likely taken from ramadhan.u-net.com, see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_May_19#File:Noor_msq-1-.jpg Otterathome (talk) 13:05, 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 EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains a copyrighted element from After Dark. Note that the uploader mistakenly claims free use in the history [1], when parody would only be a justification for fair use. Also note that this image is found only outside of article space. the wub "?!" 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flyingtoaster_star.gif&oldid=290909195){kind=link}
- 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]
Similar to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 19#File:Flyingtoaster star.gif, contains elements from the copyrighted software After Dark. the wub "?!" 13:12, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader has several copyvios; can't find the original source on this one but suspect it is as well. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:48, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image appears in this property management website: http://www.amerimar.com/detaildisplay.php?id=19 Not certain if it's the original work of the uploader. Mosmof (talk) 16:24, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the author has died over 70 years. Vinhtantran (talk) 16:25, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File is marked "all rights reserved" on Flickr, and the original Flickr info was mysterious removed since the initial upload: http://www.flickr.com/photos/40804010@N00/945117880/ Mosmof (talk) 16:28, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image appears to be from this article published in 2006 (before upload on Wikipedia): https://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=18289 Mosmof (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this appears to be the source - a higher resolution version that predates the Wikipedia upload is here, with no indication of free license/public domain. --Mosmof (talk) 22:57, 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 Icestorm815 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is tagged as being under a Creative Commons attribution share-alike license, but the given source for the image, www.jennettemccurdy.com, gives no indication that material on the site is in the copyleft. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 16:44, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the rights of this image belong to the uploader. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image claimed as PD-Pre78 - but source given as Flight International - (presumably here) which is and was not based in the United States - so the image (of a British Fighter Aircraft) is unlikely to have been first published in the United States Nigel Ish (talk) 18:02, 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 Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Publicly released isn't the same thing as "public domain." I think they may be incorrectly conflated in this case. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant. The Rand campaign specifically intended that graphic to be made for unrestricted release. The point is for spontaneous promotion, as with the famous Obama/Hope pic, except that the original comes from the campaign, not some media org that might sue later. Kaz (talk) 18:33, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image claimed as PD-Pre78 - but source given as Flight International - A British Magazine (image found here so is unlikely to have been FIRST published in the US as required by this tag.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image claimed as PD-Pre78 - but source given as Flight International - A British Magazine (image found here) so is unlikely to have been FIRST published in the US as required by this tag Nigel Ish (talk) 18:18, 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 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image contains elements of copyrighted software. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:21, 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⚡ 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An uncropped image found here, no evidence of public domain or free license. Mosmof (talk) 23:27, 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.