Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 August 18
August 18
[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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Orangeslice.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Summary and license tag do not agree and there's no way to verify the PD claim in the summary. Eeekster (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about this Eekster, I've changed the license so I hope it matches now. Please let me know if any other problems. Thanks for your assistance. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:51, 18 August 2011 (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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source indicates CC license with no commercial use. Eeekster (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Maitresse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be scaled version of [1]; the copyright notice appears to exist on the uploaded version. Appears to be false licensing. Kinu t/c 04:21, 18 August 2011 (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 tagged as non-free.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:KAlmihdhar.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This image was a from a Virgina driver's license originally. Not the FBI. I think that the current license is incorrect, and I'm not totally certain that the Virgina DMV's works are automatically Public Domain. Rockfang (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for notifying me. Looks like someone changed the license [2] and I've reverted it back to be fair use, with necessary rationale. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2011 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:14, 30 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Star-bestseller.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I can't believe a television show doesn't protect their images by copyright. Furthermore, why should they use the Apache license? Seems to be that the user just took the first free license they found. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SNGCE Library.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Web resolution, own work claim doubted. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:UE Viewer Screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I doubt that Gears of War characters are freely available. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Warsow screenshot wca1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Only the source code of the game is GPL, the artwork is under a proprietary license. As the article already contains a fair use image (the logo), this would be one too much. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have permision from the athors/copywright owners to post the screenshot. The screenshots are part of the press kit. --Clownfart (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's something. Is it possible to redirect the permission to OTRS? We don't mistrust you, but you know, everybody could just say that someone gave permission. It would be better to have evidence of the permission. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Tamuk logo-vertical.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo of Texas A&M University–Kingsville, tagged as having been released into the public domain by the copyright holder; but there is no evidence that TAMUK has done this. If evidence can be provided of its claimed public-domain status, that would be great. On the other hand, it is likely that this logo would satisfy the non-free content criteria here, if someone would write a rationale for it. —Bkell (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ktai911fm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Claimed to be self-made, but this is a logo of a radio station. —Bkell (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Javelinaslogo001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo of the Texas A&M–Kingsville Javelinas, tagged as having been released under CC-BY-SA-3.0; but no evidence is provided that this image has been released under a Creative Commons license, and I don't see any mention of a Creative Commons license on the source page, http://www.javelinaathletics.com/. If evidence can be provided for the claimed Creative Commons license, that would be great. On the other hand, if no such evidence can be provided, it is likely that this logo would satisfy the non-free content criteria here, if someone would write a rationale for it. —Bkell (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader claims he created this image himself, but lists http://www.tamuk.edu/ as the author. —Bkell (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader lists himself as the author and has tagged this image as self-created, but says "Image taken by tamuk.edu". —Bkell (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Shuddhaanandaa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Author is listed as "unknown" but the copyright tag indicates the uploader claims to hold the copyright. Eeekster (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What if the author is the person who resembles the image? I am new to these copyright things, so I really need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liza4222 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Chan45.jpg
- File:Chansungandjeonggam.png
- File:AnOkCat.jpg
- File:Taecyeon Blonde Hair.jpg
- File:Khunnie.jpg
- Really doubt these images are the work of the uploader as most look like self-taken pictures by the subjects. No evidence that any of these images were released in the public domain, either. Google reverse image search also brings up several results for these exact images, long predating the upload dates. — ξxplicit 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am friends with these gentlemen, and when I was creating the pages for them we passed around my camera phone. We also put them on twitter and me2day before the pages were created. Are you telling me that a selca is not evidence that a persons picture is real and valid? Mikepellerin (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that your don't own the pictures, but because all these images were published on other websites before they were uploaded here on Wikipedia, a little more evidence is required to confirm you are the copyright owner of the images. If you could, please email OTRS at [email protected], link them to this discussion and explain the situation, confirming that you do own the copyright of these images. It should be sorted shortly afterwards. — ξxplicit 22:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- VRTS ticket # 2011082810011614 has been raised. --Fæ (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that your don't own the pictures, but because all these images were published on other websites before they were uploaded here on Wikipedia, a little more evidence is required to confirm you are the copyright owner of the images. If you could, please email OTRS at [email protected], link them to this discussion and explain the situation, confirming that you do own the copyright of these images. It should be sorted shortly afterwards. — ξxplicit 22:28, 22 August 2011 (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⚡ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BarryHorne-as-child.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photo unlikely to have been taken by the Animal Liberation Front. Kelly hi! 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The photograph was taken by Barry Horne himself in a photo booth when he was a child. As a leading Animal Liberation Front activist, he donated all his images and papers to the ALF before he died, to make sure it would be used and freely distributed. In fact, some other key ALF activists became his legal guardians when he was on hunger strike. All ALF material is in the public domain. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you got any evidence of this that could be submitted to OTRS to verify the copyright status? Kelly hi! 00:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It already has an OTRS ticket. I don't know why you're alighting on a photograph of a child in a photo booth, taken by that child many years ago, and published on Wikipedia after his death. He was a well-known ALF activist, and all his images and writings were released by him or given to the ALF, which in turn released them. I would really appreciate it if you would stop doing this. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just asking if there's any evidence these images were donated to the ALF. Kelly hi! 01:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As SlimVirgin points out, this file does already have an OTRS ticket. If you are interested in the evidence contained there, you should contact an OTRS volunteer. —Bkell (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The OTRS ticket number was not added by an OTRS volunteer, but by SlimVirgin (him/her/them)self. Kelly hi! 01:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so? If you're claiming that the OTRS ticket number is fraudulent, then I think you should get an OTRS volunteer to examine it and confirm or deny that. Perhaps the OTRS ticket applies to a collection of images, for example, so SlimVirgin already knew the OTRS number at upload. Arguing that we have no evidence of permission when there is a box on the description page claiming to provide permission, without investigating that claimed permission by contacting an OTRS volunteer, seems inappropriate. —Bkell (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody said the OTRS ticket was fraudulent, calm down. But it is the responsibility of the uploader to prove the copyright status. My guess is that the ATF permission is a generic one (covering images taken by the ATF as an organization) and doesn't say anything about images donated to the ATF by individual copyright holders. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to apologize. Kelly hi! 03:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and what I'm saying is that there is no need to guess—we can find out exactly what the OTRS ticket says by asking. —Bkell (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm sure the uploader and OTRS can clarify that. Kelly hi! 04:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the uploader already has. If you still aren't satisfied, ask an OTRS volunteer for the ticket information yourself. With all due respect, it sounds to me that you listed this file here on a hunch that the OTRS information is insufficient, without having any idea what that information is. That's hardly reasonable grounds for listing something here at PUF. If you want to pursue this further, I think the burden is on you, not the uploader, to show that the OTRS ticket does not provide sufficient evidence of permission—the uploader has done everything properly, as far as I can tell. —Bkell (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm sure the uploader and OTRS can clarify that. Kelly hi! 04:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and what I'm saying is that there is no need to guess—we can find out exactly what the OTRS ticket says by asking. —Bkell (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody said the OTRS ticket was fraudulent, calm down. But it is the responsibility of the uploader to prove the copyright status. My guess is that the ATF permission is a generic one (covering images taken by the ATF as an organization) and doesn't say anything about images donated to the ATF by individual copyright holders. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to apologize. Kelly hi! 03:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so? If you're claiming that the OTRS ticket number is fraudulent, then I think you should get an OTRS volunteer to examine it and confirm or deny that. Perhaps the OTRS ticket applies to a collection of images, for example, so SlimVirgin already knew the OTRS number at upload. Arguing that we have no evidence of permission when there is a box on the description page claiming to provide permission, without investigating that claimed permission by contacting an OTRS volunteer, seems inappropriate. —Bkell (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The OTRS ticket number was not added by an OTRS volunteer, but by SlimVirgin (him/her/them)self. Kelly hi! 01:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As SlimVirgin points out, this file does already have an OTRS ticket. If you are interested in the evidence contained there, you should contact an OTRS volunteer. —Bkell (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just asking if there's any evidence these images were donated to the ALF. Kelly hi! 01:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It already has an OTRS ticket. I don't know why you're alighting on a photograph of a child in a photo booth, taken by that child many years ago, and published on Wikipedia after his death. He was a well-known ALF activist, and all his images and writings were released by him or given to the ALF, which in turn released them. I would really appreciate it if you would stop doing this. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS volunteer here. Not sure I'd certify any OTRS tickets from anyone claiming to be ALF. They may as well be part of "Anonymous". ALF, as an "international, underground leaderless resistance that engages in illegal direct action" does not sound like they could have a real representative for dealing with copyright issues. The ticket had someone from http://nocompromise.org/ stating that all ALF images are public domain. Say we believe that. But they never stated any images in particular were taken by ALF. SlimVirgin provided the list of files, which didn't include this one. Some of the files specified do look like they could have been taken by ALF activists. However, this one as stated above is a photo booth picture. That's the extent of what OTRS is able to provide in this situation. The onus is on the uploader, SlimVirgin, to either prove that Barry Horne left all property (or at least the rights to this file) to ALF, or to have ALF assert via email that this file in particular had rights transferred to them. Maybe there's evidence of this in the references for Barry Horne, but that's outside my purview. – Adrignola talk 00:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They run several websites and do have people who look after copyright and other queries. I can ask someone to send me an email explicitly confirming that Barry Horne left his papers and images to the movement, but I have to say that this really is going too far. I'd be surprised if any other photo booth image of a child has ever been questioned when it's in that person's bio. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 09:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This will have to be addressed in another nomination, I'm sure, and will take some work, but it looks like the status of all of these Animal Liberation Front images will have to be re-examined. There are at least a couple of serious problems here - 1) SlimVirgin has been apparently attaching the OTRS permission ticket to images that were not included in the permission e-mail, and 2) the permission is possibly invalid in the first place, as the person granting permission does not own the copyright to the images. Looking at the disclaimer on http://nocompromise.org/ reveals the statement "The information herein is solely intended for entertainment, educational, research, academic, or other lawful purposes and is from sources independent of No Compromise.". Some could possibly be used under non-free use guidelines here on Wikipedia, however. Kelly hi! 17:14, 22 August 2011 (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.