Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 June 3

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 debate was Debate at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 10#Syrianhistory.com BJ^Talk 10:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Al-khatib.jpg

Source website clearly says all rights reserved, no evidence of the CC license. Polly (Parrot) 13:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The photo was taken from the Syrianhistory.com website of Sami Mubayyed. Other photos have been taken from the website before with consent of Sami (see this one for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hashim_Atassi_Inauguration_1936.jpg). And the same goes for the rest of the photos that you tagged. Yazan (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one's public domain so is fine. Polly (Parrot) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the one's you uploaded are public domain in Syria, then you should alter the licensing to reflect that. Polly (Parrot) 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• But it was published on Wikipedia first. I'm sorry, I might not get this well yet, what exactly should I do in this case?Yazan (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I tried adding the Public Domain template to the photo license but it didn't work (

	This image was first published in Syria and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired according to the Syrian law. This work meets one of the following conditions: It is a photographic work and ten years have elapsed since the end of the year in which it was created. It is a broadcast program, or movie and fifty years have elapsed since the end of the year in which it was created. It is another type of work and fifty years have elapsed since the end of the year in which the author died. To uploader: Please provide where the image was first published and who created it. PD Syria Public domain in Syria //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2008_June_3
This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because a non-simple image can only be in the public domain in the U.S.: if it entered the public domain in Syria prior to June 11, 2004, or when, after that date, its copyright term expires in accordance with U.S. law. Information about the creation date and creator should be provided. If the image is not in the public domain in the United States, in addition to the license tag for its status in Syria an appropriate fair use license and rationale should be provided, or the image should be proposed for deletion. If the media is in the public domain in both Syria and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons. Note: If this image is in the public domain in the U.S., modify the end of the copyright tag from }} to |commons}}. This will replace the preceding U.S. copyright notification with a nomination for this image to be moved to the Wikimedia Commons.

. Yazan (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I emailed Sami Mubayed again about the photos and he assured me that i have full permission to use them on wikipedia under a CC license. Can I remove the "possibly unfree image" tags?

One other thing, why does the PD template works on that photo but doesnt work with the rest? Thanx Polly. Yazan (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 10#Syrianhistory.com. howcheng {chat} 00:25, 10 June 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.

Image:Wbepic.gif

There are two issues with this image. First, this image does not add anything to the article in which it is used which could not also be expressed (and in a more accessible fashion) in plain text. Second, the image contains likely unfree clip art for which no source or licensing information has been provided. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I beleive it's a matter of opinion as to whether the image adds value or not. I have been careful for reasons of accessibility to include the information in writing as well as in the picture. However it is much easier for a user to see and digest the flow of interactions in a diagramatic form than in a bulleted list. I have just checked the licensing terms of the clip art i used (in microsoft word) which states that it can be used in the creation of websites. I agree however that I need to list it's source with the image, and so I will do so. Your first point could be valid (depends on the consensus on this) but your second point shouldn't be valid once I have added this info. Cheers James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtq4u (talk • contribs) 08:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest it could be easily re-worked without the clip art and still serve the same purpose. Although can a created image of this sort be original research! MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do we have any evidence that the clipart is non-free? -- Ned Scott 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The diagram does add value to the article. The article itself was AFDed. The close was disputed but I have arranged usefication rather than going to the trouble of DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - According to the section of the license agreement cited on the image description page, the clip art is licensed for commercial use (specifying websites and software, although I believe it's reasonable to include printed material under the "websites" criteria since, well, you can print a website), derivative works, and further distribution--unless I'm missing something, there's actually no attribution requirement, which makes this license even more liberal than the {{cc-by-3.0}} often used by the Wikimedia foundation for licenses. While {{attribution}} would probably be the more appropriate, this clearly qualifies as "free" content for the purposes of Wikipedia. --jonny-mt 01:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It still sounds like it might only be valid for things directly involving the user who owns the program. *shrug*. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 14 June 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.