Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 September 10

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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Brant 2.jpg

This was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 September 9/Images. As images are no longer handled there, I bring it here for investigation. The lister indicted the image copies "from [1]. OsamaK 16:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)" I have notified him that the image has been moved and updated tags as appropriate. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I am adding a second image for consideration here. It was uploaded by the same individual, whose response to the PUI notice for the first picture was to upload this new image (also already published on the web), replace the one previously questioned with the new image and remove this listing without comment, here. While there may be good faith reasons for this response, it does bring into question whether either of these images may be validly released here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Pic- Brant.gif appears to be a copyvio (same size and dimensions) from http://www.rbrantg.com/bio.html# and Brant 2.jpg appears to be a copyvio (same size and dimensions) from http://www.danielbennett.net/index.cfm. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 11 September 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 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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of GFDL at http://shellesworld.smugmug.com/ dave pape (talk) 03:48, 10 September 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 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 I2 by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright image, not to mention patent nonsense Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File is on Commons - cannot be dealt with here. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted on Commons as a copyright violation. --Kanonkas :  Talk  16:46, 20 September 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 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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image can be seen on flicker with all rights reserved notice. The image is available on flicker at [2]] since October 11, 2005, that is before uploaded on the wikipedia. However name of the author as uploader on wikipedia and flicker is same pruthvi (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image. Garion96 (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean? As on today image is displayed on flicker with all right reserved license, date showing that it is there before it was uploaded on wikipedia pruthvi (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kutch is a sensitive area.I don't think so that we should display its image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasaa (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 November 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 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 I5 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image source is not identified, and image is not being used for the purpose allowed by the licence: “for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents”. The uploader has a history of trying to use copyrighted images under false pretenses. —Michael Z. 2008-09-10 15:18 z

The licensing actually allowed the use of screenshots for critical comments of the contents of the station or program, and the content of that Iraqi TV news service was a tank (which is the subject of the article) heading to the front, so I see no reason for a removal. Yes, during my first year as a Wikipedian I uploaded, in good faith, a series of pics I think qualified for fair us or free use. A good number of them were deleted due to my lack of knowledge about copyright templates (after all, I am not a lawyer). The last one was removed by myself. But I also successfuly posted image files which inlustrate now several Wikipedia articles, so accussing me of "false pretenses" is not only unfair, it's also uncivil.--Darius (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there are examples in Wikipedia of screenshots uploaded for comment of the content: Just see, here and here.--Darius (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Nominator] After reviewing the fair-use guidelines and uploader's comments, I'm less certain of my objection. I'd like to leave this here for comment though, but it appears to me that the use of the photo in T-72 and Lion of Babylon tank to identify the subject would be okay, but the licence should probably identify the articles in which its use can be permitted. —Michael Z. 2008-09-10 23:32 z

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 I5 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Time magazine cover that fails WP:FUC #8. In WP:FU#Unacceptable use it states: "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." No sources discuss the cover. This is highly political/controversial topic so it was brought here instead of CSD. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific criteria for noninclusion is "a magazine cover, [solely] to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." That clearly is not the case here; we have plenty of other photographs of her. The Time cover is specifically being included as the cover itself is newsworthy. On Monday, Time itself discussed the cover as it relates to any alleged bias in media coverage.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of this revision, the text reads:

Palin appeared on the cover of both Newsweek and Time. The Time cover story of Palin came as the newsmagazine had been critical of the McCain campaign for allegedly limiting media access to Palin.^[1] Time later cited their Palin cover in an editorial on media bias.^[2]

As I stated on the article's talk page, we're not going to have pages, or even paragraphs of discussion on the Time cover, but I think using the cover image to illustrate the discussion of the notability of the cover itself falls squarely in line with fair use.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) It seems that the discussion of the fair use of the Time cover image is continuing here (at least for now): Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:Sarah Palin Time cover.jpg.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source and copyright status of this image are obvious and are correctly given — this is not the correct forum for expressing concerns about this image. You are looking for WP:IFD. --B (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass your message along to Gtstricky.  ;)   user:j    (aka justen)   17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did seem odd in here. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:51, 10 September 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 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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contains multiple elements of the Vista OS.  Asenine  17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A crop of those elements would work nicely with this image. I wonder if the copyrighted elements aren't really de minimis though. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:19, 11 September 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 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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Released into to PD by a magazine? Sdrtirs (talk) 20:07, 10 September 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 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 F3 by Kinu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not free and subject is still alive. A free image should be available. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:52, 10 September 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.