Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 22
[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 discussion was: Delete Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:2ne1 2009 photo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- http://sookyeong.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/51321.jpg, (higher res, available on the internet since July 2009 and per COM:LL) Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:50, 22 May 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 - {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Univermarx.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- According to Commons:Commons:FOP#Hungary there is FOP but text mention outdoors and according to the description this is indoors. Is that a problem? Karl Marx died long ago but the article about Corvinus University of Budapest says it is from 1920 so we could guess that the statue is from 1920. So unless someone know the author we can't be sure (s)he died 70 years ago. MGA73 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the statue was installed before 1923, it is {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} if nothing else. If FOP doesn't apply, we would need more information in order to tell if it can be moved to Commons or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 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⚡ 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2006 statue in the United States according to this page. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 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⚡ 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Might the coin be a copyright issue? Commons:COM:CUR has no entry for Italy, so I take it that coins are copyrighted there. Leonardo da Vinci died almost 500 years ago, but maybe there are other creative aspects in the coin which could be a problem? The purpose of the coin is to display the coin so that the size can be compared, and so the coin can't be de minimis. Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 22 May 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⚡ 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced to Google Maps according to the source fields, but also claimed to be own work (i.e. taken using a satellite owned by the uploader). If indeed taken from Google Maps, it is unfree and replaceable. Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 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⚡ 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Edvinbiukovic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I don't know what the licence template at hr:Datoteka:EddyMala.jpg says, but it contains a big copyright sign, suggesting that the image is unfree for some reason. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 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⚡ 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IMG 8233.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Might the book be a copyright issue? Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 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 - utilitarian object. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the United States. Artwork or utilitarian object? Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 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⚡ 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says "A still from Meethi Meethi Batein" so this seems to be a still image from a movie or a tv screenshot. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:59, 22 May 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 - I'm going to go out on a limb and use the same principle as at Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels, which is that the image is showing the wall, with the graffiti as secondary in importance (and low resolution regardless), so it is de minimis. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Graffitti is always a grey area (usually very unknown creator) - but it's still 2D art of a kind. This ones says on the article "Mural first created in July 2007 and renewed each year thereafter by local and international graffiti artists." - therefore this is a case of 2D artwork, and therefore has copyright. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of this photo, I'm not sure how I've breached any copyright laws. The picture is of a park, some trees and a railway embankment, where a considerable number of individual examples of graffiti are seen obliquely. No work of art forms the major subject of the photo. In the UK I understand 2D artworks in a public place have copyright, but that if the artwork is not the main focus of a photo then the copyright of the photo lies with the photographer. Sionk (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom. You may only upload photos of "works of artistic craftsmanship" but not photos of "graphic works". Murals are explicitly listed as an example of graphic works. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like pedantry to suggest that any photo that contains any part of a piece of graffiti, however obscure and whatever proportion of the photo, divests the photographer of any copyright. My photograph is an original work created by me. It is not simply a photo of an artwork. In fact the nearby pieces of graffiti are obscured by the trees. It is common practise on Wikipedia to illustrate articles about graffiti or graffiti artists using photos that have graffiti visible somewhere in the scene. Sionk (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is stupid, it isn't a mural because it does not tell a story, keep file there is no reason otherwise. ObtundTalk 23:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like pedantry to suggest that any photo that contains any part of a piece of graffiti, however obscure and whatever proportion of the photo, divests the photographer of any copyright. My photograph is an original work created by me. It is not simply a photo of an artwork. In fact the nearby pieces of graffiti are obscured by the trees. It is common practise on Wikipedia to illustrate articles about graffiti or graffiti artists using photos that have graffiti visible somewhere in the scene. Sionk (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom. You may only upload photos of "works of artistic craftsmanship" but not photos of "graphic works". Murals are explicitly listed as an example of graphic works. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 8 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⚡ 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image of 2D artwork Ronhjones (Talk) 22:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also appears to be a derivate taken from http://mortara.georgetown.edu/about/ Pol430 talk to me 19:47, 27 May 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⚡ 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Asma Lamnawar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Google image search shows...
- 302 × 720
- Asma Lmnawar - Arabsounds Community
- www.arabsounds.nl/forum/showthread.php?t... - Translate this page
- 19 dec 2010 – Asma Lmnawar Foto's Arabische zangers/zangeressen.
However when one clicks the link, you only get a small version http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRNPwLxMTblhjREiPhOORxCjbkb1O6FBjkdamsVQfwrzV9gx8L46QW5N0y0 - looks like the 302 × 720 has been replaced on the site with a 145px × 347px image, but does show a watermark ownership (which has been cropped out of the WP image) Ronhjones (Talk) 22:38, 22 May 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.