Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Emblem-important.svg
This talkpage is for discussing the Possibly unfree images page and process. It is not a forum for general image copyright help. Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to ask general questions, where you will normally get a rapid answer. This page is not as well monitored.
Shortcut:

What am I doing wrong?[edit]

I tried to follow the process at WP:PUF, but on the image page for File:The_Genealogy_of_Bharata.png, there is only the template string, and on the user page here the substring string is shown, rather than the actual templates. As far as I can tell, I am following the instructions correctly however the results show otherwise. Could someone tell me what I am doing wrong? JanetteDoe (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The file is located on Wikimedia Commons and WP:PUF is only for files located on Wikipedia. If you want to nominate a file for deletion on Commons you can use Commons:Template:Delete. --MGA73 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I did not know that. Are there copyright restrictions on the Commons that we may need to be worried about? That was my main concern in posting. Otherwise, can you guide me on cleaning up my perhaps mistakenly placed notices? Following instructions, I placed notices on the image page, the uploader's talk page, and all the pages where the image is used. Please advise me, I am finding the help pages in this case not very helpful. Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to shorten discussion time[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
PUF Discussions starting today are now only in affect for 7 days. The currently open ones will remain for the full 14 days. Only so we don't dump a weeks worth of work on the system. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that we shorten the discussion time for PUF from 14 days to 7 days. 14 is unnecessarily long, and there isn't any logical reason why PUF should have a longer time interval than FFD and all the other file deletion processes. I don't know if this is the right place to propose it, but I'll start here and move elsewhere if instructed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support For three reasons. First, a Google image search and a bit of legwork can get you a lot of information about most files in under an hour, so there's no need to build in extra time for investigation. Second, if it is at all likely that the file will be released under a free licesne via OTRS after being brought to PUF, an OTRS-pending tag can be added, which should keep a file from being deleted, and can sit on a page for a month before anyone really considers removing it, so there's no need to build in extra time for waiting for a free license. Finally, most of the cases filed at PUF probably should have been sent to FfD anyways, so there's no need to build in extra time for due process. In short, there's no need for the extra time. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I quite agree with both Magog and Sven. Actually, I'm not at all sure why we are keeping PUF around as a separate page at all. It could easily be merged into the FFD process completely. Fut.Perf. 18:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    To be fair, it is much better to have a separate board, because it clears up FFD and streamlines the processes. Pseudo-speedy go through {{subst:nsd}}, {{subst:nld}}, {{subst:orfur}}, etc. Files which might be unfree go here. And all other types of deletions go through FFD. That said, PUF files can go through FFD if the nominator desires (although it is discouraged), which makes it all the more silly that we wait longer here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. But I also think that it should be possible to keep a few discussions open for a bit longer if needed. I think that the reason for separating the files is that puf is about copyright and ffd is about if the file is usable. So puf should be harder to investigate than ffd. We have been talking about copying that on Commons so copyright issuses are separated from "simple" discussions. --MGA73 (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's extremely rare that any discussions go over a week as unresolved - and those that do are kept open until there is a resolution, regardless the expiry time. Skier Dude (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support There are rarely any comments added after 2-3 days after the requests are added to the PUF page anyway. Of course, discussions should remain open if they are still ongoing after one week. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support To standardize all del noticeboards in Wikipedia, and as this place handels copyright infringement, we should get it off the wiki quickly. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Skier Dude and Stefan2. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, the sooner this is modified the better. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Possible Copyright Violation?[edit]

I may be wrong, but I believe that the copyright of this image: File:US 51-star alternate flag.svg, does not belong to the uploader and that the image of this flag is in violation of copyright laws. The flag represented in this image is owned and was proposed by the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico. As a matter of fact [Puerto Rico - Political Flags - Part II] states that the flag was designed by Andy Weir in January 11, 2001. I certainly hope that copyright laws have not been violated and if so, I hope that someone here takes action in the matter and nominate the image for a speedy deletion. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding number of discussions remaining to "holding cell"[edit]

Can we add the number of discussions remaining to the holding cell entries? I find this information extremely helpful when going through FFD discussions, and would like to see this same information added for PUF discussions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright wrong but almost still PD[edit]

Moved to WP:MCQ: TheFeds 00:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I'm not sure where to bring this up as the image is clearly Free, but I'm not sure it's as Free as we are listing it to be.

File:Hardie elect.jpg is tagged as

but the given author (Keir Hardie) died in 1915 which is only 97 years ago (not the 100+ claimed). However, it is not guaranteed to be Hardie's own work, in which case it might qualify for PD as an unknown author's work more than 100 years old? I'm far from an expert with this though so all advice is welcomed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

woops![edit]

I just realized i added 2 files (File:Jordan Marsh advertisement.jpg and File:Worcester Center Galleria Map.jpg) but they are housed on Wiki Commons. I am going to put them up for deletion there.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Give due notice. Inform the uploader - ONLY?[edit]

The instructions simply say "Give due notice. Inform the uploader [by]...". This is inadequate, IMO. I propose changing this to "Inform the uploader and if there is one, the last license editor." I haven't been active recently, and it's only luck that I didn't miss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_1#File:Jerry_Rosenberg_1424049c.jpg !

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talkcontribs) 15:30, 2 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Comments? Alternatives?

  • Comment well, the uploader isn't necessarily the uploader either, some of the files have gone through the workshop so the modified file uploaded isn't the original uploader. SVG versions of JPGs would mean the original uploader is the one indicated for the JPG, the vectorizer wouldn't be the uploader, etc. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of work by U.S. state governments[edit]

Perhaps this should receive a shortcut, so that people nominating files for deletion based on their US state copyright status can point to it? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Using Twinkle - Step III omitted[edit]

I recently tagged an image. Twinkle seemed to omit step III as listed here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files (tagging the captions). Also, I don't remember any information box pointing out that I had to do that manually. True? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of people who list files at PUF do not add any {{pufc}} template. Also, if a {{pufc}} template is added, then it risks being kept in the article even if an image is kept, so the template might cause more confusion than benefit. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Stefan is correct, very few editors use the template. I don't think I ever have, and its not consistent with WP:NFCR or WP:FFD. Also, the recent RFC at Template_talk:Non-free_review#RfC:_Should_the_non-free_review_template_be_added_to_articles.3F shows some consensus that editors prefer not to have image deletion or discussion tags on articles, just on the image description pages. In my many years work in the file namespace, I have only seen one editor complain that this step is omitted. At a discussion on Jimbo's talk page: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_153#Cowboys_at_Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files it was recommended that an RFC be started if necessary, but I believe someone (including myself) could remove the third step from WP:PUF as part of the WP:BRD process as this step is not supported by editor use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
For what it is worth, {{pufc}} is consistent with {{ffdc}}. I think that notification on the talk page is better if articles need to be notified; this avoids the risk of leaving deletion messages in articles when files are kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC at WP:PUF header[edit]

There is currently an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header revolving around the use of {{pufc}} in the WP:PUF process. As the header talk page most likely has very few watchers, I am dropping a note here to get relevant discussion from the file namespace community. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Investigating image copyrights[edit]

Where is the best place to investigate the copyright status of the two images at http://navigatela.lacity.org/downtownla/incidents/DLAHistorical.cfm?PK=73? The top image has to be from after 1939 when the annex on the right was completed. The bottom image has to be from between 1931 and 1938. I would like to use these images at Broadway Hollywood Building.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)