Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 June 24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 24
[edit]
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kottayam.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Base map's source not provided, without that it is not possible to determine actual (c) status Skier Dude (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Doaba.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- OR, LQ, without base map source, not possible to determine (c) status Skier Dude (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sandeep Arora.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Orphaned, web-resolution, no source, only upload by user Skier Dude (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2012 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Photographs on wall is not an explanation for its license status. It may still protected by copyright ...Captain......Tälk tö me... 16:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, now the house and the paintings are both open to public; painting is about 50 years old and it's not bound to any copyright according to the head of monastery with whose permission Ive taken this. --AshLey Msg 06:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons:COM:FOP#India is claimed to be similar to Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom. Murals are not supposed to be fine in the United Kingdom, so maybe they aren't fine in India either? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But, there is no specific copyright holder for this picture. Anyway, if you still consider that the photo infringes copyright law, you may delete it. -AshLey Msg 08:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright holder is presumably the person who painted the mural, or, if he is dead, the heir of this person. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The monastery staff was unable to trace it since the painter was not a well-known artist but just an amateur. No problem, follow the rules. --AshLey Msg 11:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, too bad for you, then. The copyright expires in the United States 95 years after publication, and painting it on the mural seems to count as publication according to the American definition of publication. You wrote that it was "more than 50 years old", so there is no evidence that it is at least 95 years old and so it would have to be treated as copyrighted in the United States. If painted anonymously, the copyright in India expires 60 years after publication, but painting it on the mural presumably doesn't count as publication according to the Indian definition of publication, so it seems that the 60 years haven't started yet. The copyright law of India doesn't seem to contain any provisions which allow unpublished works to enter the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like to take it personally; it's just bad for Wikipedia and open world. Delete it! AshLey Msg 06:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, too bad for you, then. The copyright expires in the United States 95 years after publication, and painting it on the mural seems to count as publication according to the American definition of publication. You wrote that it was "more than 50 years old", so there is no evidence that it is at least 95 years old and so it would have to be treated as copyrighted in the United States. If painted anonymously, the copyright in India expires 60 years after publication, but painting it on the mural presumably doesn't count as publication according to the Indian definition of publication, so it seems that the 60 years haven't started yet. The copyright law of India doesn't seem to contain any provisions which allow unpublished works to enter the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2012 (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 discussion was: keep, permission confirmed. — ξxplicit 01:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bobby Bones.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Dubious own work since the image also appears on Facebook.[1] Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my photo, I'm a DJ, I did an interview with the subject, Mr Bones and I took the photo then. Do you need me to verify this somehow like get his manager to say its my photo and I have the copyright on it? She arranged the inteview and allowed me to take a few photos. Aspyinthehouseoflove (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For files which appear elsewhere on the Internet, you should follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT to prove that the image on Facebook really was taken by you. Or the Facebook user who uploaded the image to Facebook could add a statement to Facebook that the Wikipedia upload is legit. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Stefan! I will mail the WP:CONSENT to sort this out! ---Aspyinthehouseoflove (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Latex wolf mask.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a derivative work of a mask. I'd guess that the mask is copyrightable. Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Olarticochea.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- 1986 photo. Entered the public domain in Argentina on 1 January 2002, which is later than 1 January 1996, so it is currently unfree in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2012 (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 as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ernstlouishesse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The formulation "Private Photograph" implies "unpublished photograph". Unless published before 1923, it may be copyrighted in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Stefan - Thank you for your kind comment. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. The private photograph (original negative is the private collection of Wartenberg Trust), however the photograph was published in Germany (as a postcard) in the year of creation. Wartenberg Trust owns the largest collection of these photographs and original negatives. Copyright in the US expired and the image is free. Thank you!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2012 (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 discussion was: keep with licensed updated to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:GeorgdonatusHD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The formulation "Private photograph" suggests "unpublished photograph", but the template says that it was published before 1923. Besides, this doesn't seem to be a US work, and it was created in 1922, so if it was first published at least one year after creation, there is a high risk that the copyright was restored by the URAA. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Stefan - Thank you for your kind comment. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. The private photograph (original negative is the private collection of Wartenberg Trust), however the photograph was published in Germany (as a postcard) in the year of creation. Wartenberg Trust owns the largest collection of these photographs and original negatives. Copyright in the US expired and the image is free. Thank you!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2012 (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 discussion was: keep with licensed updated to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wolradwaldeckpyr.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- "Private photograph" suggests "unpublished photograph". Unless published before 1923, the photo may be copyrighted in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Stefan - Thank you for your kind comment. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. The private photograph (original negative is the private collection of Wartenberg Trust), however the photograph was published in Germany (as a postcard) in the year of creation. Wartenberg Trust owns the largest collection of these photographs and original negatives. Copyright in the US expired and the image is free. Thank you!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2012 (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 discussion was: keep with licensed updated to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Louisewaldeckpyr.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- "Private photograph" suggests "unpublished photograph". Unless published before 1923, the photo may be copyrighted in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Stefan - Thank you for your kind comment. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. The private photograph (original negative is the private collection of Wartenberg Trust), however the photograph was published in Germany (as a postcard) in the year of creation. Wartenberg Trust owns the largest collection of these photographs and original negatives. Copyright in the US expired and the image is free. Thank you!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2012 (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.