Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 2

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GajamanNona.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• does the author of the 3d object have copyright on the 2d photo or does freedom of panorama work here? And if it is free will it be acceptable on commons? IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama .Public Statue in the Public road.Free to get photography. Eeriyaka (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until the location of the statue given, to evaluate the Freedom of panorama. feydey (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• CC-BY Image file is uploading with CC-BY original file is from http://www.flickr.com/photos/47219633@N06/4327660708/?edited=1 .Please remove the from the deletion list and tags. thanks . if there is anything please contact me . Eeriyaka (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Location Statue of Gajaman Nona,Public Statue located at 6.113637,80.991409 .The Nona Gama junction highways A2/A18 between Tangalle and Ambalangoda ,Mathara,Sri Lanka.

*Comment Does anybody know the status for Freedom of panorama in Sri Lanka? --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sri Lanka doesnt have freedom of panorama--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2010 (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 discussion was: keep. File relicensed as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musaeus College logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• does the author of the 3d object have copyright on the 2d photo or does freedom of panorama work here? And if it is free will it be acceptable on commons? IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriate use of nonfree logo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep someone added non-free logo and rational.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:06, 9 February 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Archbishop Williams School - Jesus the Teacher.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• does the author of the 3d object have copyright on the 2d photo or does freedom of panorama work here? And if it is free will it be acceptable on commonsIngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No FOP in United States, no evidence of when this sculpture was created. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:August Willich.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• http://www.marxists.org/admin/legal/images.htm IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"all the images on the Marxists Internet Archive are in the public domain", what do you want more? This picture has been on Wikipedia 3 years before you! Just leave it alone. --DelftUser (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is the problem if i came from a book witch book, if it came from a site witch site, if its public domain witch jurisdiction, how old is it, is the author dead if so by how much time? Public domain criteria in 1 country is not the same in another country. A PD image without this info is as big a liability as a copyvio image.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean which site?! it's from the MIA and they clearly say their images are public domain. The guy & the photographer are long dead, the image is PUBLIC DOMAIN, no need for any additional info, it's been their for FIVE years, long before the one million article was created and years before you and people like you ruined Wikipedia. Just leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DelftUser (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They state on the link i provided that "Some images have been taken from old books, some have been taken from other sites on the internet." As for public domain its a very complicated issue no 2 countrys are alike.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific you can take a PD image include it in a grater work like a book you one the rights to the hole work text+image, if someone takes the image scans it crops it the image doesn't turn back into PD it still the same license as the book regardless if there is a PD version "floating" around.I don't dough the original image used in the book is PD but we must make sure the book itself is PD too.We need detailed source, book title,author, and most importantly year of publication.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2010 (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.

As the licensing isn't the problem, would be more appropriate to discuss at WP:FFD.--Otterathome (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whose side are you on.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not used anywhere, not encyclopedic, lacks a description, a full source and author. Otterathome (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not used anywhere, not encyclopedic - free dus irrelevant, lacks a description, a full source and author - fixed.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking it in the most relevant article you can think of and guessing the authors/source hasn't made it any less encyclopedic. Carelessly sticking it in an article just because it's up for deletion is disruptive.--Otterathome (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. This image is clearly GNU licensed and free. And Otterathome, please refrain from making conclusions about intents and motives. That can be considered personal attack per WP:Assume Good Faith. Thanks for listening. Difu Wu (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. The image is under the GUN licensed and free. It passes and is not violating any guidelines. Kyle1278 23:05, 4 February 2010 (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 Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GeorgeEmilPalade2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1974/ - public domain claimed, apparently this is not the case.—- Andrei (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• File on the link is smaller and not sepia toned definitely not the source.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding sepia is an alteration that creates a derivative work; for that to be free, the original one still needs to be free. Anyway, here is the actual high resolution source, as stated in File:GeorgeEpalade4.jpg, another copy of the same file. Still no evidence of PD.- Andrei (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-5T.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unlikely to be the work of the uploader http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html credits image to DefenseIndustryDaily, image has no meta data MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IPod Touch (3G).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• While the picture is a photograph of a 3d object (an late 2009 iPod touch 2G) it mostly shows the 2D screenshot of Apple's software. Not sure if it should be changed from being listed as PD or if a fair use statement is necessary. PaleAqua (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  See COM:DM. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:39, 17 February 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:First Mickey Mouse Sketch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Last I checked, Mickey Mouse is a trademark. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Trademark status is irrelevant for copyright questions, though if this is an original sketch, I'd doubt that Disney licensed it under the GFDL. Don Cuan (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bulldogs.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• School logo (if not, then no need for user created art). Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (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 uploader appears to be an unsanctioned role account, and therefore all of his or her uploads are unusable. IAR delete. Blueboy96 13:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:OSM-highlevel.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a photo of a diagram of some kind. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: JanaGanesan (02/05/2010)

• I have posted Organic Server Management article on behalf of Sabre Holdings.
• The image is under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (Allow non-commercial use, commercial use and modifications as long as others credit Sabre Holdings.)
• So, please don't delete this image and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks - Jana!!!

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 uploader appears to be an unsanctioned role account, and therefore all of his or her uploads are unusable. IAR delete. Blueboy96 13:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:OSM-comps.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a photo of a detailed diagram of some kind. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: JanaGanesan (02/05/2010)

• I have posted Organic Server Management article on behalf of Sabre Holdings.
• The image is under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (Allow non-commercial use, commercial use and modifications as long as others credit Sabre Holdings.)
• So, please don't delete this image and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks - Jana!!!

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.

Speedy delete, F9. Obvious misappropriation of copyright. Blueboy96 13:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:5277016 firstImageIMG.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Jersey of a sports team. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:23, 2 February 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maurice Ascalon 4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image has an embedded copyright claim that does not seem to match the uploader. Quibik (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2010 (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.