Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 October 27

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 Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Immaculate Concepcion Parish.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Watermarking from a website with no assertion of a free license. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:45, 27 October 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.

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banksy-art.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Graffiti art - 2D - This is not self as uploader claims, but maybe FOP under UK rules, PUI refferal to confirm this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Commons:COM:CB#Graffiti. Waiting for second admin opinion instead of closing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strike that. Wrong forum - image is now on commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:34, 10 November 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.

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⚡ 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Despite the claims made, this is a book cover, and would thus under normal circumstances be copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 27 October 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.

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⚡ 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco de Asis Plaza.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Admittedly I have not found this image anywhere on the net to prove an unfree file. However, this contributor has a history of claiming ownership of non-free files (see his talk page at commons and here). All three of his remaining images in commons are most likely copyright violation as websites have been found with his images and are now tagged for deletion. This contributor has even uploaded an image in commons after it was deleted following a {{puf}} copyright review (see puf and commons). Lastly, this image dose not contain any metadata which would help to suggest that this contributor photographed it. Even though I could not find a website with this image on it, I find it extremely unlikely that this image belong to this contributor and since he has such a history of copyright volitions, it should be deleted. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Given the uploader's history and the lack of metadata, this image should be presumed to be a copyvio. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:22, 27 October 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.

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⚡ 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:OntarioScienceCentreHours10am-5pm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a derivative image of a copyrighted television screenshot. The copyright holder is presumably the Ontario Science Centre, and is definitely not the uploader. The image can't even be used on a fair use rationale, because it fails criteria #8 ("its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding") -- we already have freely-licensed images of the front of the facility, and the operating hours (to the extent they are encyclopedic, which is debatable) can easily be added to the text of the article without need for this photo. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this image does not meet the generally accepted de minimis standards and is not needed, so it fails criteria #8.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 27 October 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.

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⚡ 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is a derivative image of a copyrighted television screenshot and posters. A cropped version of the television screen has also been nominated for deletion. The copyright holder is presumably the Ontario Science Centre, and is definitely not the uploader. The image can't even be used on a fair use rationale, because it fails criteria #7 ("Non-free content is used in at least one article") and #8 ("its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"). The image also does not meet the generally accepted standards for de minimis on Wikimedia projects, as the copyrighted images are the only visible portions of the photograph. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this image does not meet the generally accepted de minimis standards and fails criteria #7 and #8.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:34, 27 October 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.

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⚡ 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camasuiguptodate mapphoto.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copied off an "out of date map", but surely not an Ordnance Survey map from >50 years ago, so pretty certainly a copyright violation. —innotata 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has uploaded this or similar maps before, which have been deleted. However, this doesn't seem to meet the speedy deletion criteria: these only refer to websites for files, apparently. —innotata 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a copyvio to me. Only the date of the map would confirm that it is free. Finavon (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a metric OS map. These were not published before 1969. You can see the same contour lines (with meter labels) at this link. The upshot of all this is that it is still under copyright. Thparkth (talk) 04:30, 28 October 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.

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: no consensus. It doesn't appear we're getting anywhere in this discussion absent further information we don't currently have. The (alleged) copyright holder is welcome to renominate for deletion, or anyone else that has more knowledge of the issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Terraplane1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence found of a renewal which would have been required given the date of the design. Underlying badge design, if it ever was copyrighted rather than simply trademarked, is {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cropped close up picture of the logo on the car on the right. I took the pictures about 30 years ago when I worked in Nepal. I don't see why this would be a problem; if I can take a picture of a whole car, then I can take a picture of a logo on that car as well. MH (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, de minimis I see... :-( MH (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why this picture might not be allowed... I'm not up on why a picture of a 'car badge' is against rules/laws/etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: If you took a picture of your living room, with a television turned on, while Twilight:New Moon was being viewed, the overall image could be fine and you could release it into PD. But if somebody cropped out everything but the image of Twilight:New moon and said that resulting image was PD, there would be a problem. There is a misconception that images labeled as "free" that may contain trademarks and other copyrighted material makes everything within the image also free. That is simply not true. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How likely is it that this log is {{PD-Pre1978}})? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very from the style of the vehicle it is attached to. Probably just pre-WWII I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from here to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 27 October 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.

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: no consensus - see reasoning on discussion immediately above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tallahassee Police Dept rc03461.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence on the source website http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/ or the item catalog for this image that it has been released into the public domain. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The user has uploaded a lot of images from the floridamemory website some in the public domain, some with non-free rationales. A comment on File:Murat Graves.jpg indicates an assumption from correspondence with the The State Archives of Florida that the images should be cc-by-sa although it also indicates wikipedia use only. All looks a bit of a mess. MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry also found Category:Images from the Florida Photographic Collection but it only has 15 images. MilborneOne (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restricting this to the image in the original nomination, elsewhere the Florida archives show this image used in a page layout - here, RC00695, so it seems almost certain that the 1937 date given is publication as well as creation. A 1937 publication required renewal. That alone, never mind the need for registration, makes this 93%+ likely to be free. If one is willing to accept that something containing pictures of Tallahassee city employees was likely published by the City of Tallahassee, that will rise to 100% since there is no renewal registered by the city. A more general discussion should be held elsewhere. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Having dealt with Florida Memory in the past I can say with certainty that each image needs to be taken individually. Anyone can verify also by viewing the Disclaimer and Copyright Information page, which clearly states Some of the images may be protected by copyright. For this image, as the nom indicated, there is no clear release of copyright on the information page. Publication info is "ca. 1937" and "Included in the photograph are Sydney Keller, Barney Gatlin, ? Bradley, Bill Bass, ? Henderson, G.G. Powledge, and C.A. Bryant." There is no source given (i.e - photographer). Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ugh. I had a long, acrimonious, and ultimately useless discussion with a user over his uploads belonging to the state of Florida: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Florida uploads by User:83d40m. I dare you to read it all. I even had the user revert me on the {{PD-Florida}} template. In short: if this was taken by a public institution in Florida other than a university, it most likely is PD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Magog you clearly did not understand the discussion and the laws in play at that discussion. The discussion with at least 3 other users (Not just one) was making attempts to explain why some materials, including some from the USF system, could be considered "free". And the reversion you speak of was to a template that you attempted to reword to state something that was not factual. And even now your comment of "if this was taken by a public institution in Florida other than a university..." shows you *still* do not understand the law(s) that had been discussed. As for *this* image, as I said above anyone can read the page on the source website and it clearly states Some of the images may be protected by copyright. If somebody can read that and than state "it most likely is PD" despite the source image location not stating any such thing there is clearly a lack of understanding with what the meaning of words such as "Some", "may be protected" and "copyright" are. Not all images on that website come from state organizations. For example the Richard Parks Collection was donated by his family, nothing to to do with government work. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, perhaps I don't understand. What an obviously dumb thing it was to copy a well sourced statement verbatim from the Copyright status of work by the Florida government article - silly me! I should have listened to that poorly worded filibuster from the uploading editor that none of the administrators could figure out either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I am not sure what you are getting at. The "well sourced statement" that all of us used were taken from locations such as State of Florida, Department of State, State of Florida - The Florida Constitution and University of South Florida System - Office of the General Council. "Poorly worded" in your eyes is the law as written? None of those "poorly worded" laws say "if this was taken by a public institution in Florida other than a university, it most likely is PD". And what matters in *this* discussion is what the source says - and that does not say "if this was taken by a public institution in Florida other than a university, it most likely is PD" either. Again, it, in what I perceive to be plain English, says Some of the images may be protected by copyright. I don't find that "poorly worded" and it is a "well sourced statement" *direct* from the source. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm talking about the removal of a statement which I added that was copied verbatim from one of our articles from a sourced statement. At this point I just gave up because the uploading user appeared to have an agenda with no desire to listen to my reasoning, whereas his own reasoning was the poorly worded retort. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from here to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 27 October 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.

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⚡ 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marmite xo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused derivative work of copyrighted item that uploader fails to show falls under de minimis. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:02, 27 October 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.

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⚡ 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soren ELX 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Soren ELX 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Soren ELX 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Soren ELX 4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Soren ELX Interior 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Soren ELX Interior 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Soren ELX Interior 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Runna TU5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Runna Front.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Runna Interior 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Runna Interior 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Runna EF7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Soren ELX 5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• All these appear to be images created by the car company, not self taken images. File:Soren ELX Interior 1.jpg even has a computer generated view of some fake flower field. My best guess is these are taken from some Iran Khodro promotional page. They are only used in Image galleries, a place that Fair-use images are not allowed.

--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete; also, add File:Runna Options.jpg, apparently copied from a PDF catalogue or something. --Mormegil (talk) 21:20, 8 November 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.

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⚡ 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roger William Harris.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Roger Nancy Harris wedding.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused image with conflicting copyright information. Says in summary "The photo is hereby released for fair use" meaning this image could be an orphans fair-use image. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:43, 27 October 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.

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⚡ 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ANANDALAYALogo1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused file - duplicate of File:ANANDALAYALogo.png. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:07, 27 October 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.