Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 11

< February 10	February 12 >

February 11[edit]

File:SobrianJules.jpg[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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image looks professional, unlikely that the uploader holds the rights. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 16 year old user says he made this 1972 photograph. Seems unlikely. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:38, 11 February 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.

File:FriedmanJerome.jpg[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 discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image looks , unlikely that the uploader holds the rights. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The angled line at the right where the background changes color does not look like an "official or professional" portrait to me. It looks to me like this is cropped from a snapshot to give a headshot effect. No proof that the uploader took it, but I see no reason not to assume good faith. DES ^(talk) 03:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DES. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:45, 19 February 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.

File:ETIHADHQ.jpg[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.

Doubts as to whether this type of structure displays sufficient originality to bring the UAE's non-freedom of panorama into play are unresolved. Commons would almost certainly keep this. See, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:UAE Embassy Moscow.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

FOP in the UAE is restricted to broadcast programs only IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the image is declared unfree, I have a good fair use rationale to use the Etihad headquarters. It is the same fair use principle that I use in regards to the Air France headquarters. Both Etihad#Head office and Air France#Head office describe the buildings in detail, so the visual image is needed. Whether or not the image is copyrighted according to UAE law, the image will remain.
- What I am trying to determine is whether the image would be considered to be unfree according to UAE law. If it is considered to be FOP unfree, then I just have to update the licensing. If it is considered to be a free image, then I move it to the Commons.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Commons:Village_pump#UAE_image_Commons_eligibility - I also added discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Arab Emirates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abu Dhabi WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was wondering whether there was a criterion of originality that covered whether a building has a copyright or not, and if the building is not original enough images of it wouldn't be copyrighted. To be on the safe side I'll give the Etihad image the Air France-style FU rationale. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Under US law the copyright on a building does not generally extend to images of the constructed building. Other countries do not for the most part have the same kind of strict "originality" test in their copyright laws, although of course these vary. I don't know what UAE law is like in this respect. DES ^(talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In any case, if FOP does not apply, add a FUR. If FOP applies, the image is free. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 19 February 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.

File:Second Unitarian Church interior.png[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 discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Second Unitarian Church interior.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Although claimed as pre 1923 - Journal article listed is post 1923 and no other information given Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I saw that the image was mistagged, and didn't notice that "1853-1865" was just part of the title of the 1969 book. I have removed the pd-1923 tag. decltype (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image was likely correctly tagged IAW copyright law. However, it needs to be clearly tagged from its source. If a 1969 book used pictures from a previous publication, we need to explain that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:50, 19 February 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.

File:Untitled1.jpg[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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untitled1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Claimed as self - where from the image it's CLEARLY a n NYC publication. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:01, 11 February 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.

File:Second Unitarian Church Brooklyn.png[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 discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Second Unitarian Church Brooklyn.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Claimed as pre 1923 - Journal cited is 1969 and no other info Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I saw that the image was mistagged, and didn't notice that "1853-1865" was just part of the title of the 1969 book. I have removed the pd-1923 tag. decltype (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See 2 images above — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:51, 19 February 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.

File:Zurlain2.JPG[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zurlain2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Toy design so maybe coverd by design rights - No contest that it's uploaders photo though Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stuffy is pretty old, though, pre-1990, possible 1980, of that contributes to this at all. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:42, 11 February 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.

File:SA06posters.PNG[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SA06posters.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Copyrighted posters. Who ever took the photos of the politicians has the copyright or the politicians has. I doubt the Flickr user has a permission from them. MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it is not free use - it needs an FUR, but would be an entirely acceptable image for use in South Australian state election, 2006 once one is provided. Orderinchaos 20:55, 11 February 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.

File:Google Buzz Screenshot.png[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google Buzz Screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Fair use replacability changed from "possible" to "Yes", not sure which to believe now, and not tagged as non-free (although has a rationale). fetchcomms☛ 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is actually a screenshot of copyrighted software, as it appears to be and as the description says it is, then I don't see how it could be replaced by a free image. I have to wonder if the uploader correctly understood what "replaceable" means in this context. DES ^(talk) 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. It's now tagged as a copyrighted promo image—or should it be a screenshot? The source seems to be advertising it, I guess, but it wasn't released in a press kit as far as I know. fetchcomms☛ 18:45, 12 February 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.