Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 December 30: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:50, 6 January 2009

< December 29	December 31 >

December 30

File:Cgroves.jpg

No evidence of public domain Rettetast (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gallery_badger_in_field.jpg

Source says "We at www.badgers.org strongly support an artist's right to retain creative control over their work, and to receive compensation for the fruits of their toil. This includes the work of photographers and naturalists. All photographs on this site, unless explicitly credited, were culled from the Usenet newsgroup alt.animals.badgers, or received via e-mail from friends and amatuer naturalists. Executing reasonable diligence, I believe these images to be in the public domain. As such, you may copy them for your personal use and non-commercial enjoyment." This is not a good enough evidence of public domain.Unless there are indications that the author has released the image it stays copyrighted. Rettetast (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gallery_euro_badger2.jpg

as above Rettetast (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gardner_picture.jpg

File:Gardisti.jpg

Source is dead. Probably not public domain. Rettetast (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:SwaminarayanNZ.jpg

appears to have been taken from the website http://www.swaminarayan.info/auckland XLerate (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:ArtofWarSE.jpg

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 as G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely free image due to complexity and likely commercial source. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to delete this image whenever it's convenient. This was a test that was done several months ago, and is not being used by any article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:55, 30 December 2008 (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.

File:12 days.png
This image was listed at WP:CP on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 December 24. The IP contributor who listed it there stated his or her rationale in edit summary at the image page, here, noting "The article this appears in states that it is copyrighted from "five gold rings" onwards." Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:John GillioDFC.jpg
orphaned, summary is contradictory; both 'fair use' and 'promotion of...', no source given Skier Dude (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jonatan.jpg
orphaned, no source, possibly for Milan Knazko, appears to be professional headshot Skier Dude (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jorgek.JPG
orphaned, absent uploader, blurred image, appears to be screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jr 2.gif
orphaned, no source given, but states Hypothetic Records which would be the (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pe10.jpg
orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear (possibly John St. Onge), given pixelation, probable scan of printed material Skier Dude (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pe2.jpg
orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear, appears to be photoshopped screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pe3.jpg
orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear, appears to be photoshopped screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pe7.jpg
orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear, appears to be photoshopped screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pe8.jpg
orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear, appears to be photoshopped screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pe9.jpg
orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear, appears to be photoshopped screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Reynato.jpg
orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear, appears to be professional headshot Skier Dude (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rk 4.gif
summary indicates that Hypnotic Records may be actual (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rm 5 small.gif
summary indicates that Hypothetic Records may be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Glentoran.gif
orphaned, if this is the legit football club logo the uploader would not be the (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Grss badge sm.gif
orphaned, appears to be a football club logo, if so, uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Locked2.JPG
orphaned, if this is a legit football club icon, uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Mercuism.png
orphaned, base image appears to be Mercury (automobile) logo Skier Dude (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:MothertruckerLOD.jpg
orphaned, appears to be album cover, no source "created by" not clearly related to uploader username Skier Dude (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Stdavidb.jpg
orphaned, appears to be school logo; if so, uploader would not be (c) holder, no source Skier Dude (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Exponent.png
orphaned, claims to be Think Computer Corporation logo, thus uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:GoliathLWB.JPG
orphaned, absent uploader, claims to be screenshot, source not given Skier Dude (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Brest inscription2.jpg
not public domain under new Russian law: {{PD-Russia-2008}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Breakers, Vanderbilt.jpg

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 as G7 by Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not enough information given about postcard to determine if it's in the public domain. Unless published before 1923, it would appear to not be. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2008 (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.

File:Brest inscription.jpg
does not appear to be in public domain under {{PD-Russia-2008}}: author could not have died before June, 1941. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bristol Beaufort.jpg
UK copyright expires 70 years after publication, see {{Anonymous-EU}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bristol Brigand.jpg
see above Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Samuel thirumeni.JPG
Seems unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder. Combination of copyrighted images. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Falling hare bugs restored.jpg
While the cartoon this frame is from may fall under {{PD-US-not renewed}}, the character of Bugs Bunny most certainly does not. Moreover, Bugs Bunny is clearly not incidental to the frame, and so de minimis cannot apply. Thus, this image is a derivative work of a copyrighted character, and is thus a copyright violation and should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the copyright has expired, the copyright has expired. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that the copyright of the film itself has not expired, I'm saying that the copyright of the character hasn't.

As an example, consider freedom of panorama laws - you can take a photo of a building (in France say), and you can release your photo into the public domain, but the building may still be copyrighted, meaning you can't use the photo even though it's PD. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because a character remains under copyright, it doesn't guarantee that a work featuring a character is also copyrighted FMAFan1990 (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not saying that the work is copyrighted, just the character is. The image in question may be a derivative work of something which is PD, but it is ALSO a derivative work of something which is not in any manner free (licence-wise). Thus, that is a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - copyright violation of the character. Images in PD films can be copyrighted. The character Bugs Bunny is copyrighted, though the film and even the frame of the film are not. - Silver Spoon 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Stifle said, if copyright has expired then copyright has expired. Is the nominator confusing copyrights with trademarks? Anomie ⚔ 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. I'm a commons admin, it's my job to know what constitutes a copyright infringement. I'm not arguing with the statement that the cartoon is in the public domain. The issue is that the CHARACTER is not. Let's have an example. Say you take a photo of your front room, and release that image to the public domain. Fine, the image is PD. But if someone cropped the image to show the TV screen (which was playing a DVD or something), then THAT would be a copyright infringement because the DVD was not public domain. Similarly, the cartoon is public domain, but a frame which shows Bugs Bunny is not sufficiently free because that character is still under copyright. Bugs Bunny is most definitely copyrighted - that, Mickey Mouse and Elvis are the reasons that copyright terms keep getting extended. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is this considered derivative work? By definition, derivative work is an unautherized alteration or reproduction of a licened work by an unrelated third party. This is anything but derivative as it is taken from the restored version of the short which is featured on one of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 3 DVD boxsets. It was also my understanding that restored or remasted versions of films were under copyright even if the original print wasn't. So therefore you won't be finding this version of the short on some bargain 99¢ DVD like the ones from Digiview Productions. Sarujo (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note — a derivative work does not mean it's an unauthorized alteration, nor a reproduction. A derivative work can just as well be free, if the original image is available under a free license. I'd recommend to see this link for more information. --Kanonkas (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well either way lets just get rid of it and replace it with something else. I have a pic that can be used. Sarujo (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cobra Remote.jpg
Doubts wether uploader is really copyright holder. No description or info given, no Metadata. Uploader has a history of suspected Copyvios getting deleted. DavidDCM (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cobra amphibic .jpg
Doubts wether uploader is really copyright holder. No description or info given, no Metadata. Uploader has a history of suspected Copyvios getting deleted. DavidDCM (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cobra 20-b.jpg
Doubts wether uploader is really copyright holder. No description or info given, no Metadata. Uploader has a history of suspected Copyvios getting deleted. Orphaned. DavidDCM (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cobra 14.jpg
Doubts wether uploader is really copyright holder. No description or info given, no Metadata. Uploader has a history of suspected Copyvios getting deleted. Orphaned. DavidDCM (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:FNSS PARS.jpg
Doubts wether uploader is really copyright holder. No description or info given, no Metadata. Uploader has a history of suspected Copyvios getting deleted. Orphaned. DavidDCM (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Img 8 4106 1.jpg
Doubts wether uploader is really copyright holder. No description or info given, no Metadata. Uploader has a history of suspected Copyvios getting deleted. DavidDCM (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Yavuz 8x8.jpg
Doubts wether uploader is really copyright holder. No description or info given, no Metadata. Uploader has a history of suspected Copyvios getting deleted. DavidDCM (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:SabraMKIII.jpg
Doubts wether uploader is really copyright holder. Unlike the user's other images this one actually has metadata and a short description telling the whats and whereabouts. But given the fact that basically every other image uploaded by him is a suspected CopyVio I nominate this one as well. DavidDCM (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Spotify client mac os x.jpg
copyvio notwist (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a plain screenshot taken by me, of the Spotify client running on my machine - would you be so kind to explain exactly HOW this image is a copyright violation before sending it off to deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleffmann (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agreed157.228.4.57 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems completely normal to me WP:SSC? I added the screenshot tag to counter any confusion. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 10:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Alexcropped.jpg
This image was listed at WP:CP on 12-28. The flicker page where this image is displayed, here, has a different copyright tag than that utilized here. I considered tagging this {{npd}}, but npd isn't exactly right, as this uploader has not "sourced [the image] to someone other than the uploader". She is claiming to be the photographer, but simply hasn't verified that yet. In addition to moving the listing here, I will advise her of donation procedures. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the owner of the photo (I took it, I posted it). I followed the link you left, which is my flickr account. As you can see there are several other Alex Band photos there. I donr know what else Im supposed to do to prove I took it but this is kinda silly. I dont know how to work those tags, their impossible. Someone is welcome to fix it for me though. I hate all the fancy tagging!--Thegingerone (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:137885059 84936b4b07 o.jpg
This image was listed at WP:CP on 12-28. The flicker page where this image is displayed, here, has a different copyright tag than that utilized here, but there may be more difficult problems to overcome in this case, in that the contributor may not own the copyright, but merely the physical picture. (It is the photo referenced in the top note on his talk page, here.) He sought clarification on handling this in the past, but the reply he was given to his question didn't answer it. I'm moving it here from CP and will leave a note for the contributor letting him know where to find the listing. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sid-bernstein.jpg

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 as I7 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible unfree image. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2008 (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.

@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 The image is a plain screenshot taken by me, of the Spotify client running on my machine - would you be so kind to explain exactly HOW this image is a copyright violation before sending it off to deletion?  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rleffmann|Rleffmann]] ([[User talk:Rleffmann|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rleffmann|contribs]]) 00:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 *agreed[[Special:Contributions/157.228.4.57|157.228.4.57]] ([[User talk:157.228.4.57|talk]]) 00:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
-:Seems completely normal to me [[WP:SSC]]? [[User:Jellypuzzle|Jellypuzzle]] | <sup>[[User talk:Jellypuzzle|Talk]]</sup> 10:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
+:Seems completely normal to me [[WP:SSC]]? I added the screenshot tag to counter any confusion. [[User:Jellypuzzle|Jellypuzzle]] | <sup>[[User talk:Jellypuzzle|Talk]]</sup> 10:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 ==== [[:File:Alexcropped.jpg]] ====