Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 25

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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. No evidence given that the image was published. Shell ^babelfish 17:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sadly, there is no proof, given the source, that this image was published before 1923; it was only 15 years old at that time. And it is not old enough to fall into the public domain if it was not published. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly a yearbook photograph, ergo it was published. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2009 (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 image 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. No evidence of publication, many cabinet cards were portraiture for personal use. Shell ^babelfish 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sadly, not PD: "Unpublished anonymous works", per US law, must be from 1880s or earlier. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This image is CLEARLY outside the 70 year rule and therefore does not qualify for copyright protection. Chadwick died in 1907. This image is outside US copyright rules. Stude62 (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a cabinet card. This means that it was published. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2009 (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 image 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: Kept. One of the stranger combos, but currently PD in the US. Shell ^babelfish 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD in Canada, but not in the US, where it must be PD. The City of Vancouver does make use of copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is public domain in the US per the combination of {{PD-US-1996}} and {{PD-Canada}}. Canadian photographs taken before 1949 are in the public domain in Canada (and were so as of 1996), which means they were in the public domain in the U.S. as well. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cover of a published manga is a copyrighted work of the publisher and artists and cannot be released under a creative commons license. —Farix (t | c) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not actually a cover, but a chapter splash page that's been edited to translate some of the Japanese into English. But the copyright claim remains -- that the original work has been altered does not change the copyright status, and so yes, not possible to release as CC. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Every article there is has a picture of a cover of the book or DVD or game box it comes in. That qualifies as fair usage, doesn't it? Dream Focus 05:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wrong licensing this file was uploaded under Creative Commons and not fear use.
  2. Derivative work thanks to illegal scanlation and not original stuff. Fan site anyone?
  3. Manual of Style anime/manga suggests cover of the first Japanese volume which it is not.

• Delete Non-free image which is an "illegal" derivative work from Nurarihyon manga series. --KrebMarkt 06:34, 2 October 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from MySpace, states that it has been released into the Public Domain with no evidence and appears to have just been copied, with complete ignorance of copyright. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:16, 25 September 2009 (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 image 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded with a pd copyright tag that speaks about photographs, but this is evidently not a photograph but a drawing, from a 1980 publication. No reason to assume this is not copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 25 September 2009 (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 image 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. File is now tagged as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 05:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image has never had a satisfactory fair-use rationale, nor does it have a proper license. Permission is only granted for use on Wikipedia. otherlleft 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several requests were made to have the permission updated to include third parties. It appears that this image has been uploaded more than once and deleted for similar reasons in the past, despite the current claims of fair use.--otherlleft 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't the "Prior free use publication:" section confirm the image is fair usage? It was distributed and published by newspapers across the country, shown on television, and even used by someone on the cover of their book. Dream Focus 05:38, 2 October 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely a copyright violation and mistagged as own work. In view of the copyright owner's complaint we received via OTRS regarding File:Yasar-kemal s.jpg (see discussion above), also uploaded by this user, it appears very likely that this image was similarly just found somewhere on the Internet. The user is inactive since 2007.  Sandstein  16:58, 25 September 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely a copyright violation and mistagged as own work. In view of the copyright owner's complaint we received via OTRS regarding File:Yasar-kemal s.jpg (see discussion above), also uploaded by this user, it appears very likely that this image was similarly just found somewhere on the Internet. The user is inactive since 2007.  Sandstein  16:58, 25 September 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely a copyright violation and mistagged as own work. In view of the copyright owner's complaint we received via OTRS regarding File:Yasar-kemal s.jpg (see discussion above), also uploaded by this user, it appears very likely that this image was similarly just found somewhere on the Internet. The user is inactive since 2007.  Sandstein  16:58, 25 September 2009 (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 image 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. File tagged with fair use. — ξ^xplicit 06:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is basically a scan (or close-on photo, or complete graphic, or whatever) of a commercial magazine's cover, or at any rate a very significant proportion of it, and so cannot possibly be covered by a Creative Commons license. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like fair usage to me. Any cover of something published is fine. Shows a good example of how censorship works, the Iranian government covering up pictures of a couple embracing from National Geographic. Do you believe the copyright owner would object to the usage of this image? Dream Focus 05:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that it's public domain. The National Geographic cover is visible in the background, but the Iranian government placed the sticker over a substantial portion of the cover. By modifying it substantially, I would imagine that this becomes their creation. (Shaky, I know, but IANAL.)Hoborocks (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's fair use, it needs to be tagged as such and provided with a rationale ASAP. It's currently tagged as CC for some bizarre reason. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 07:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I tagged the image as fair use, but I couldn't find a tag that was quite appropriate (I used a magazine tag). This isn't my usual area of work, I haven't even worked on the project in a while, but I couldn't stay away from this terrible beacon of deletion. Anyway, I filled in the tag to the best of my ability, but you guys better take a look at it and tie up the lose ends if it's to remain. Tealwisp (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2009 (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 image 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 Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter logo, bearing a copyright notice in the name of the uploader. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:21, 25 September 2009 (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.