Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 May 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 13
[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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence that the uploader has the rights to release the image under GFDL. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I would be inclined to say that {{PD-textlogo}} applies in this case. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an orphan now, the article it was illustrating has been deleted. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:51, 17 May 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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:DebiProsadPal.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Very unlikely this was created by the uploader who has a history of copyvios. Resolution is also proof that this is non-free. —SpacemanSpiff 07:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my creation. Do you have proof otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupidcobra (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-The checkered background makes me skeptical.--SKATER Hmm? 14:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, image has been previously published on the Cancer Foundation of India's webiste[1] (scroll down to founder members section). The website appears to be copyrighted, see bottom of this page, with no indication anywhere else that any content is free for use. --JD554 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, given the chequered background, the link provided by JD554, and the interesting history of the uploaded with regard to copyvios, I would say that the onus is on the uploader to prove that this is a free image. They have not yet done this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:49, 26 May 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: Keep; solution offered. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found online here. - EdoDodo talk 10:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the painter died in the 19th century. Therefore it's total free picture. A Hungarian book reintroduced his old historical drawings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but the license still needs to be corrected to attribute it to the painter, the template you have used claims that you created the image yourself. If someone could take a look at this and confirm that the image is indeed from the painter, and place the correct template on the page would be great. - EdoDodo talk 11:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y Copyright information has been corrected and this image is indeed public domain. - EdoDodo talk 13:01, 13 May 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Apb dragnerve small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Game/promotional artwork - Not self as claimed ( image suggests EA as possible rights holder) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Game/promotional artwork for game AND the band Dragnerve - Is self as claimed (image made from APB fanpack freely available and encouraged from the Realtimeworld website (game owners). This fanpack includes all logos and artwork including the EA logo. This fanpack was created for this purpose, to allow people, including the bands featured in the game to make their own promo image using their images. Why would Realtimeworlds give out the EA logo in this pack in various psd formats with alphas for it not to be used freely? The Dragnerve artwork added is my own work. http://www.apb.com/media/ - Bradley brown72 talk 14:34, 13 May 2010
- 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Apb dragnerve large.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Game/promotional artwork - EA possible source given inclusion of thier logo in artwork Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Game/promotional artwork for game AND the band Dragnerve - Is self as claimed (image made from APB fanpack freely available and encouraged from the Realtimeworld website (game owners). This fanpack includes all logos and artwork including the EA logo. This fanpack was created for this purpose, to allow people, including the bands featured in the game to make their own promo image using their images. Why would Realtimeworlds give out the EA logo in this pack in various psd formats with alphas for it not to be used freely? The Dragnerve artwork added is my own work. http://www.apb.com/media/ - Bradley brown72 talk 14:34, 13 May 2010
- 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Peter Garrett.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The source website does not make it clear that this image is public domain Barrylb (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright notice of the site states that "this material may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission providing the material is not altered in any way". I'm not certain if this makes it acceptably free content for the purposes of this site though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:53, 26 May 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⚡ 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Icmickythumpbox.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Derivative image of a likely copyrighted wrapper. No evidence of permission. JD554 (talk) 12:29, 13 May 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.
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 September 8. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crest design on door and portion of glass design. Canada has FoP so might be closeable quickly? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe this would fall within Canadian freedom of panorama. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:05, 13 May 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: Keep; file is currently tagged as non-free. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GFDL claim but oviously railway ticket Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2010 (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⚡ 23:54, 16 May 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: Keep; file is currently tagged as non-free. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GFDL claim but clearly railway ticket Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2010 (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⚡ 23:54, 16 May 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: Keep; file is currently tagged as non-free. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GFDL Claim but clearly railway ticket Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (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⚡ 23:54, 16 May 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hans Hagen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Linked permission page, per Google Translate, seems to be restricting rather than granting permission: The publication of the URL is limited to the participants so as not to risk hurting someone unknowingly. Publication in other media requires the consent of people appearing in pictures. I'm not convinced the creator of this image consents to the release stated here. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: please note that the photographer only requested not to link to his personal page (that probably also means that it's not welcome that the licence points to his page; apart from the fact that it doesn't really state anything useful anyway) since that page contains all the photos, uncensored. The official page with most photos (only the best ones are chosen and completely public) is this one. The author gave me explicit permission to use the photos, but there is zero response from permissions-en@wikimedia.org. PS: I would like to use a few more photos from the same author. Is there any easier way to do so without asking the webmaster of http://www.gust.org.pl to create a devoted page just for those two photos? Thanks. --Mojca Miklavec (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes: Have the photographer upload the pictures himself.--Oneiros (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In my opinion, that statement is asserting the presence of personality rights, which is not directly at issue here (i.e., it has nothing to do with the copyright). The use of the term "other media" would indeed bear this interpretation out. Personality rights restrict the media domain in which the likeness can be used. As Wikipedia is noncommercial, personality rights are seldom infringed upon. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please see the talk page of the file in question. Someone should check the mailbox of permissions-en@wikimedia.org.--Oneiros (talk) 22:37, 13 May 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.