Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 December 31

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 I1 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a poster of some sort. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TOILETBOWLSOUPCOVER.JPG is used by permission from the official ADAMS website: http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=7861116&albumID=26975&imageID=9523250 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbauhaus (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 January 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.

Delete - sufficiently unclear that it's not free - Peripitus (Talk) 10:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image does not belong to the news website, but was taken by one of the murderers themselves. The website therefore has no right to release it for use. J Milburn (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Based on article 10 section C of Ukrainian copyright law [1], something made public by a government agency, including items made public as part of a court proceedings, are not subject to copyright. This particular image was a part of a presentation made by prosecution in court.

2. Additionally, based on article 21 section 3 of Ukrainian copyright law [2], news publications do not need author's consent to publish copyrighted content if it is used to illustrate current events. Flyboy Will (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point two, whether they have permission to publish it has no bearing on whether or not they have the right to release it into the public domain. Regarding the first point, that sounds like a grossly unfair law, but obviously, my opinion on it counts for nothing. However, I doubt that the image could be considered public domain in the United States. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of our opinion on Ukrainian law, the image is public domain twice over, based on two different clauses. Ukrainian work published in the Ukraine that's public domain in the Ukraine is also public domain in the US and the rest of the world. Flyboy Will (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. How do we know it was made public by a government agency?
2. Irrelevant, as content here needs to be under a free license. Limited to illustrating current events doesn't wash.

I recommend deletion. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 26 January 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.

Kept based on past precedent - Peripitus (Talk) 10:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, cropped from (c) image - see source Skier Dude (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures are not copyrightable. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True; however, the base image is (c), thus it would be arguable that all crops thereof would be under the same (c). If we want his signature, it should not be taken from a (c) image. Skier Dude (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a baseline rule that signatures aren't copyrightable (although I'm not at all sure that's valid). As such, this shouldn't be an exception. Keep. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 26 January 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photo of logo, uploader most likely not the (c) of the logo Skier Dude (talk) 06:17, 31 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.

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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be Bristol Fire Department logo, thus uploader not the (c) holder thereof Skier Dude (talk) 06:25, 31 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.

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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, derivative of Mac icon Skier Dude (talk) 06:39, 31 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.

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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, appears to be logo for ieleja.net, thus uploader not (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 06:57, 31 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: withdrawn by nom, keep by default, license issues addressed.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC) I don't think this was PD in Italy in 1996, as per the template, the author would have to have been dead for 70 years. J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This image was largely on public domain in Italy by 1976, since as per Article 29 of the Italian law at the time when this image was created, the copyright of any work of the Italian Government or its employees expires after 20 years.--Darius (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense, I have fixed up the image page. Consider the nomination withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, and best regards.--Darius (talk) 18:33, 31 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images of toys like this have to be considered non-free, per this. Image is made up of two non-free components. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per excellent reasoning above. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:12, 14 January 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images of toys like this have to be considered non-free, per this. Image is made up of two non-free components. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per excellent reasoning above. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 14 January 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation claims fair use, tag claims PD. Looks like a publicity photo, so tag is probably invalid. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not attempt has been made to respond. Could be fair use if can be shown to come from a press kit, and sourced from Wiki Commons. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 14 January 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader used a GFDL-self license but also indicated it is a "product photo by P.I. Engineering," which is the company that makes it, and gives a URL. URL doesn't work and I can't find the photo on the website. Uploader's username is Pi48895, so I suppose they could be from the company, but that wouldn't necessarily give them the right to release it under the GFDL. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Picture is accessible here: http://www.raildriver.com/products/ Looks like copyrighted as the website states: © 2008 RailDriver™ . I suggest removal. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:04, 2 January 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-self but no evidence uploader holds copyright, as creator is presumably Christos Kagaras. Jfire (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - uploader User talk:C.zacharakis is not responding to deletion notices and other warnings. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 14 January 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-self but no evidence uploader holds copyright, as creator is presumably Lefteris Theodorou. Jfire (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - uploader User talk:C.zacharakis is not responding to deletion notices and other warnings. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 14 January 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a derivative work from Google Earth or other copyright-protected remote viewing software. Unlikely that the uploader shot this from his own personal satellite or derived it from free content. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with above, the uploader has not responded in 14 days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:55, 14 January 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image was been deleted for lack of source information. It was re-upped December 30 by the same user and this time with the summary "Author: Keith Griffiths Source: Peace Mala Office Fair use." It is using the cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 and GFDL however. While one could place a FUR on this image it does not meet all 10 of the needed criteria found at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, in particular number 1 - No free equivalent. The image is being used in the Pam Evans article - a biography of a living person - as the "featured" image. (EDIT: I see the same image was also uploaded by the subject of the image as File:Pam 11Jun07.jpg who was warned that the image was "missing information on its copyright status" before being deleted on August 20, 2007.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use this photograph has been given by Keith Griffiths, official photographer for the Peace Mala charity. This photograph is to be found on the home page of the official Peace Mala website: www.peacemala.org.uk The same photograph is also used in Peace Mala promotional flyers and other Peace Mala literature. Confirmation of this may be obtained from Keith himself by e-mailing: keithphoto2003@yahoo.co.uk As the photograph was taken by Keith, it is naturally his copyright. However, Keith has given permission that all photographs he takes for Peace Mala may be freely used to help raise awareness of the Peace Mala project for world peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pam Evans (talk • contribs) 10:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you contact Keith Griffiths and ask they send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating their ownership of the material and their intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. Once that is on file there should no others issues. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:50, 8 January 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.