Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 25
[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. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not eligible for Freedom of Panorama in U.S. because it is not a building. See here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Panorama_freedom Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DISAGREE. It's a historic marker in the pavement...on a public (not private property) sidewalk. Eric Cable | Talk 03:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:This is uploader. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 03:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter what type of property it is on. It appears the copyright belongs to The Mecklenburg Historical Association or whoever made it. I quote from the page I linked to, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. " The only exception is buildings and only buildings. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 03:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anyting on it that says "copyright" but if you're obsessed with deleting it, go ahead. Maybe I should stop trying to create content and just become a deletionist. Eric Cable | Talk 13:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if you took it personally, that wasn't my intention. Also, something doesn't have to display a copyright notice to be copyrighted. However, I could be wrong
and this could be PD under no original work but I doubt it. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 15:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I take all deeltion personally. It's the worst thing about participating in Wikipedia. Eric Cable | Talk 19:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if you took it personally, that wasn't my intention. Also, something doesn't have to display a copyright notice to be copyrighted. However, I could be wrong
- I don't see anyting on it that says "copyright" but if you're obsessed with deleting it, go ahead. Maybe I should stop trying to create content and just become a deletionist. Eric Cable | Talk 13:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Violates the copyright of the historical marker. Can be undeleted in 2133. Copyright notices are only required on historical markers which were set up before 1978, but this one was set up in 2012. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2133 huh? I'll be sure to mark my calendar. Eric Cable | Talk 19:23, 25 April 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.
- 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 F9 by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an organisational logo, and thus this file cannot be a self license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it is a non-free logo and orphaned. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 12:02, 25 April 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.
- 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that this is in the public domain as currently claimed. Previously listed as used under a fair use claim, but the image currently violates WP:NFCC#7. Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion here will largely be related to ongoing discussion at [1]. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument for considering automated surveillance video made in the US as public domain/ineligible for copyright is essentially that under US copyright law, under which this image would be judged, there is a Constitutional requirement of creativity (Feist v. Rural). Here, the reasoning of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is apposite in holding that faithful digitization of a preexisting two-dimensional public domain image does not evince the creativity required under Feist to result in copyright. Here, the addition of a third dimension changes the analysis not at all. The possibilities for the necessary creativity could be said to lie in the angle of the surveillance camera (think of creative camera angles in a Hitchcock film), but here it is functional so as to capture passersby on a public sidewalk, not creative, and functional elements have long been held not to be creative. Creativity might be said to lie in the fixation itself (think of a photographer choosing that perfect moment to snap the shutter), but here the fixation was continuous or at fixed intervals. The phrase "slavish copying" has been used to describe the work done in Bridgeman. What could be more slavish than an automated surveillance camera? Could an artist use an automated camera creatively? No doubt, but that is not this case. As to the argument that we should only include images in Wikipedia where there is a settled court case, note that Bridgeman, itself, is settled law only with respect to the Southern District of New York and yet we rely upon it everywhere else. (National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute) Why? Because we judge the reasoning to be sound. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment we already have File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg (under deletion discussion further up this page) -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If we assume that the above image File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg is non-free, then this file is duplicative and should be deleted as routine (this is uncropped, the other version crops to the two suspects, and no information is lost from the cropping). If the above image is determined to be free, then this image doesn't matter. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This image does contain information that is not in the other image and might be relevant to discussion of the bombing and investigation (e.g. the timestamp information, a marathon runner's legs visible in the upper left quadrant). If it is determined to be free, I'd recommend moving both to commons. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_19#File:Two_suspects_wanted_by_the_FBI_for_the_bombing.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Suspect1and2.jpg time-stamped one second later and containing better images of runners should also be considered in this discussion, not because we should include every second of the videotape but because it was already uploaded. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this file is free of encumberances, it should be moved to commons. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What IP 24 said.Epeefleche (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment File:Suspect1and2.jpg has also been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 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.
- 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Einstein.Painting.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The artist, Harm Kamerlingh Onnes, died 1985. No proof that the image was published before 1923. The file page claims cc-by-sa-3.0, which seems highly unlikely. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:14, 25 April 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.
- 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 G4 by Mike V (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pakman-2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Deleted at least twice before - File:Davidpakman2012.jpg and File:David-Pakman-2012.jpg - no new evidence of permission - EXIF data clearly shows copy right Paul Shoul Ronhjones (Talk) 20:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged under G4 Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:10, 25 April 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.
- 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 with the additional files, since no evidence of free status is available. Danger High voltage! 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bat Khan.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Freedom of panorama does not apply. This is not a building. Freedom of panorama also doesn't apply in Mongolia, where this was taken. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How old is this? Is there a possibility that the underlying artwork might be in the public domain because of age? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unknown. I can't find any info on it. I left a note on the uploader's talk asking. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any information about this statue, but if deleted then these other uploads of similar statues from the same source/museum should probably go too: File:Monkh statue.JPG, File:Guyug Khan.JPG, File:Khubilai Khan.JPG, File:Khulug Khan.JPG. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:13, 21 May 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.
- 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Starmanashewasknown.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Orphan image that looks to be a screenshot of a message board or forum. Includes a icon of a green version of Homer Simpson. The piece of Homer is owned by that production company -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:42, 25 April 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.