Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 16

< June 15	June 17 >

June 16

File:Adaptation logo-r8.png

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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its a logo MaenK.A._Talk 09:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please elaborate? Thanks FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Logos aren't typically free images, and must be used as fair use. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:17, 2 July 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.

File:Aaron-Niguez.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 by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MaenK.A._Talk 10:42, 16 June 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.

File:Mon2.jpg and 5 other photos from same source

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: Deleted-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The six photos are: File:Vd1.jpg, File:Mon2.jpg, File:Rs1.jpg, File:Mon1.jpg, File:Eur.jpg and File:Strogino-residental.jpg. Uploader didn't make these photos. They are from http://fotocomp.chat.ru/ (where I can't find the photos - I don't know Russian). There is a statement from the photographer here but the license is far from clear. User:Nillerdk (talk) 11:49, 16 June 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.

File:SheikhupuraInterchange.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 by NrDg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image appears to be a screen grab from Google Maps or a file taken from a site or software that uses the same source for aerial imagery. A search on maps.google.com for Sheikhupura, Pakistan gets the general area. Zooming in to the interchange shows details that identify the two images as being the same. Examining the traffic pattern on the motorway shows the same number of vehicles in the same positions in both images. As Google gets its aerial imagery from commercial sources, its quite clear the uploader is unlikely to have the rights to this file. Whpq (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has also uploaded other aerial imagery, which given the above is equally suspect. Also listed are:

-- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below has been copied from User talk:Ahsaniqbal 93 -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Sir I have taken all of these images from Google Earth, which is a free public-use software, as defined on their website under their Terms of Services section.

"We're flattered to hear that you're further incorporating Google Earth into your online world. You can personally use an image from the application (for example on your website, on a blog or in a word document) as long as you preserve the copyrights and attributions including the Google logo attribution. However, you cannot sell these to others, provide them as part of a service, or use them in a commercial product such as a book or TV show without first getting a rights clearance from Google."

Could you please explain me that how these satellite images can be unfree if Google, their provider, is proving these images to public for free. What I claim is that they are 100% free to use on any public domain like Wikipedia. It has been declared that a user can use these images on not only a personal website but also on a public domain i.e., any blog or something like Wikipedia. According to the above paragraph, Google asks the user to give credit of license information to Google, then that I am ready to provide. Otherwise, explain me that how are these satellite images not eligible to be used on Wikipedia. Since, there are many satellite images being used on Wikipedia which have been cropped through Google Earth or Google Maps.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahsaniqbal 93 (talk • contribs)

There are a few problems with the licensing. The first problem is that the licensing on the images you've uploaded claim that you are the copyright holder. This is factually wrong as you have now identified Google Earth as the source. This would be correctable but for issues with the Google Earth licensing.

The second problem is the Google Earth licensing. The images are allowed for personal use and are not released for commercial use. This is not compatible with the licensing needed for Wikipedia as others can choose to make commercial use of the material. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the licensing is problem, then we can give the credit of licensing information to Google. So that it can not remain a big confusion in the licensing information of these images. The only condition that Google puts on its users is that we will have to give the credit of licensing to Google. So that it will be lawful to add these images to any public domain. Why only these images are being targeted? There are hundreds of satellite or aerial images on Wikipedia related to many airports which have been taken from Google Earth or Google Maps. According to Google, they want a credit to them "inside" the images. I am ready to upload images with the credit information refered to Google on Wikipedia. Then will they not become lawful? If Google's terms of services have been fulfilled, then why does the Wikipedia not allow them to be on Wikipedia? Can there be any possibility of these images to be on Wikipedia? Can there be any logical reason for them to be on Wikipedia? I do want to put them on Wikipedia, as these images definitely show more detailed information about the motorway. If still according to Wikipedia, these images are liable to be stuck of their website then please, also make an objection to thousands of satellite images which have been taken from Google Earth. There are many Television channels which use Google Earth for their broadcasting. How are they given the right to use these images on such a worldwide platform? Even if they use Google Earth Pro, they still access the same imagery which a free user accesses. --Ahsaniqbal 93 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot simply give credit to Google to solve the licensing issue. Google allows you to use it for personal use. Uploading this to Wikipedia is not personal use. The images are nonfree. See WP:NONFREE. You are not the copyright holder. Google is the copyright holder. You do not have the right to release these images into the public domain, or release them under a Creative Commons license. As for other broadcasters using the images from Google Earth, they likely have signed a commercial licensing agreement with Google. It's one of the ways that Google makes money. AS for other satellite imagery from Google Earth in other articles, if you are aware of them, then by all means you should list them as possibly unfree images (WP:PUI). -- Whpq (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meets Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#F3. These images are copyrighted with usage restrictions that do not permit free-use on wiki. Uploader admitted that his original statement of licensing that would have allowed free-use was not correct and confirmed ownership of the images as being google maps with license terms incompatible with free-use on wiki. These images are used in an image gallery in M2 motorway (Pakistan). Fair use with an appropriate fair-use justification might be argued but not as images in an image gallery. If the images add to understanding of the article they may be referenced using {{google maps}}. See for example Interstate 25 for a similar usage. --NrDg 18:58, 21 June 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.

File:JackResigns.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 by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously a newspaper clipping from 1958 which in Ireland is still under copyright. Uploader cannot possibly hold the copyright of this image. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 16 June 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.

File:James Ensor.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 by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belgium stamps are copyright for 70 years after issue AND 70 years after the death of the designer per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Belgium. As a non-free image it is orphaned and should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 16 June 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.

File:James Ensor kopie.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 by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belgium stamps are copyright for 70 years after issue AND 70 years after the death of the designer per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Belgium. As a non-free image used in a non stamp article it fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 14:26, 16 June 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.

File:WWE-SUMMER SLAM-2009.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: File does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE has never made any of their PPV posters public domain, the uploader did claimed that they made the image which is I have my doubts. Considering that WWE has had hundreds of PPV's and all of their posters are copyrighted, I doubt they would all of a sudden make this one free TJ Spyke 20:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from commons and not en.wiki -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 16 June 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.

File:Jpba-logo.svg

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 Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the logo of the [http://www.jpba.or.jp/ Japan Professional Bowling Association, yet the author of the image uploaded it under CC-by-SA-3.0 and GFDL. There is no evidence he has the right to freely release the logo for the JPBA. Additionally, he uploaded the logo as an SVG, which makes it possible for anyone to use the logo in any size they want at high resolution without permission. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and switched the licensing to the logo template. But the issue here is still the scalability of the logo. The GIF is so small, which is why I converted to SVG. Should I stick with the GIF?

groink 22:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just take your SVG, make it smaller (no larger than 300px x 300px), and save it as a PNG. Then upload it with the proper licensing, let me know, and I'll delete the SVG. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Go ahead and delete the SVG.

groink 10:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:25, 18 June 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.

_{Subscript text}