Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 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.

Deleted by User:Skier Dude. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sion-Masami.png

File:Sion-Masami.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:Revoish uploaded a few photos of Sion Sono marked as public domain. Some of them (e.g., File:SionSono2.png or File:SionSono.png) are from sources that don't identify them as public domain, so they can be speedied. I don't know where this one's from but odds are it isn't public domain either. Prezbo (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SionSono-Karlovy.jpg

File:SionSono-Karlovy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See above--probably not actually public domain. Prezbo (talk) 03:51, 2 January 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.

Delete Although it may be possible to make a claim of fair use, this does not appear to be a free image, original uploader was blocked some time ago for repeated copyright violations, and no clear source for the image has been established. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kahoe sign.jpg

File:Kahoe sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As the Bath School disaster article states, this sign was found and photographed on May 19, 1927; the licensing claimed is for media "first published prior to January 1, 1923" under which this image does not yet fall. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:56, 2 January 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.

Result was Keep Tagged as non-free with a WP:FUR attached, discussion of it's use in the article is not relevant as far as non-free status is concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Citizendium main page.png

File:Citizendium main page.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I'm not sure what a screenshot of the front page of Citizendium adds to the article. Presumably, the home page of Citizendium is changing on a fairly regular basis, so a static screenshot isn't that useful. Quanticle (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For what it's worth, screenshots of web sites are pretty standard, as far as I'm aware: Google search, Wikipedia, Craigslist, Yahoo! Mail, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 2 January 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⚡ 23:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I add a fair use rationale to the file. Please see the file page. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added a fair use rationale to the file for use at the Larry Sanger#Citizendium section. See the file page for FUR. QuackGuru (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the fair use rationale for the use of the non-free image on the page Citizendium as per the image rationale on its page, I disagree with the rationale given for the use of this image on Larry Sanger there is no compelling reason to use it there. RP459 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 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.

• Result was Delete all uploader claims to hold copyright but has not provided proof as outlined at WP:DCP.

File:Chittastadium2011cwc.jpg

File:Chittastadium2011cwc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph of what appears to be copyrighted media. Unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — ξ^xplicit 05:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NewWankhede2011cwc.JPG

File:NewWankhede2011cwc.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph of what appears to be copyrighted media. Unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — ξ^xplicit 05:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:VCA stadiumnewcomeon.jpg

File:VCA stadiumnewcomeon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader has uploaded nothing but questionable media files, this one is no different. — ξ^xplicit 05:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This photo had been taken by me.--Karyasuman (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When admitting that one was a screenshot while marking it with {{PD-self}}, I find it hard to believe that this is a photo actually taken by you. — ξ^xplicit 19:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photo has been taken by me. Even I can take another photo of this stadium but I want to fight battle till the end and win it.--Karyasuman (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a derivative work of a copyrighted image. It's just an image from this page run through a basic Posterizing filter on Photoshop or GIMP. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Dude, this is my image. I have only supplied to them. I am a proffesional cricket photographer.--Karyasuman (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's the case you need to follow the procedures outlined at this link. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete processed version of this non-free image [1] RP459 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this is my image. I have only supplied to them. I am a proffesional cricket photographer.--Karyasuman (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's the case you need to follow the procedures outlined at this link. (is there an echo in here?) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 12 January 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: resolved - license fixed & moved to article space. Skier Dude (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RabbitEarsLogo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Brought here for clarification - Uploader stated "I wanted to make this logo CC-BY-NC-SA but that does not seem to be an option. In its absence, I'm going to just post it here under Fair Use, which as owner I assume as copyright holder I can do." CC-BY-NC-SA = "Creative Commons, by-attribution, non-commercial, share alike" which is not compatible with the CC licenses used herein because of the "non-commercial" restriction. Given the "logo" status, it can't remain in the user/sandbox space... Skier Dude (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the uploader, as it is my site and my logo which I designed myself. Every time I've asked someone for advice on the licenses of my things, I get ignored, until I actually decide to just go with it and upload something, and then it's deleted usually before I have a chance to say anything. So would someone please tell me what is necessary? I want the NC in it because I don't want some huge business stealing my logo, tweaking it, and using it as their own, as it would cause confusion and could make my site look bad. If I can accomplish this without the NC, then I will do that, but since I can't get anyone to answer any questions (people like deleting, not helping), I have no way of knowing. TripEricson (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want a result similar to NC, then the image would have to be switched to a non-free image. If this switch is performed, the image can no longer be used on any page except an article. At that point, if after approximately 7 days, the image is not used in an article, it will most likely be deleted. I understand your reasoning for wanting NC, but my suggestion would be to change it to CC-BY-SA instead.--Rockfang (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So I'm guessing that my user space article that is a work in progress does not count as an article? The person who was heading that up has not been in touch with me, and I do not know the procedure for dealing with this article that he began setting up. I've been trying to prepare the article and it probably is ready, but as far as posting it and then potentially having to defend it, I don't know how to do it and I do not have the knowledge of Wikipedia functions, rules, and procedures to do any of it. TripEricson (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically, no, it is not an article yet. Non-free images should not be used on any page that starts with "User:". Once you think User:TripEricson/RabbitEars is ready to be made into a normal article, you should be able to just click the "move" tab near the top of the page. Then in the "To new title:" box, just type in RabbitEars. For the "Reason:" box you could type something like "moving page from user space". Push the Move page button and you'd be done. If this doesn't work for you, I could move it if you'd like.--Rockfang (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I've moved it. Thanks. =) TripEricson (talk) 00:15, 4 January 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⚡ 23:20, 2 January 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lindsay Hartley (09).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Likely invalid license; CCA3.0; this file generically claims facebook.com as its source with no external link. Uploaded by same user as
  • Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 1#File:2008-Lindsay-Hartley-CELEBRITY-PHOTO-L.jpg; File:2008-Lindsay-Hartley-CELEBRITY-PHOTO-L.jpg
    apparently to avoid the xfd. Long history of bad uploads. Jack Merridew 16:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This Image is from facebook under the lindsay hartley--CGSexyPhat (talk) 16:34, 2 January 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.

Now tagged as non-free, any further discussion should be at WP:FFD Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PlacespottingIphoneScrren1.png

File:PlacespottingIphoneScrren1.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No source given for underlying satellite image, which is likely copyrighted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok that is true, what do I need to do to say that the satellite image comes from Google? Mafussen (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google's satellite images are copyrighted, so you don't have the rights to release this image under a CC license. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:57, 2 January 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⚡ 05:23, 6 January 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.

Deleted as obviously not a free image. Could be re-uploaded with a valid WP:FUR. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JillValentineRE5.png

File:JillValentineRE5.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Can't be PD self - Game character Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, image description page indicates they got it from either Google or Gamespot. Their may be a way to use it with a proper WP:FUR, but clearly not a free public domain image. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 3 January 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.

File:Lapfordstation.jpg

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

• Tag claims creator has been dead for 100 years, but description claims taken in 1913. One of these must be incorrect, but there's no source to let us check either way. bjh21 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe the uploader has simply added the wrong tag. I think it meets the terms of Template:PD-US, which specifies any image published either inside or outside of the U.S. before 1923 is exempt from copyright. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-tagged it with that license, I'm fairly certain it is actually PD. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that tag would seem to be a good one. --bjh21 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 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: delete. Freedom of panorama in the US applies to buildings but not to art; this is non-free. See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States for more information. Chick Bowen 19:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bird and apple sculpture in Santa Fe NM USA.jpg

File:Bird and apple sculpture in Santa Fe NM USA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• photographer may not PD photo of protected artwork Yworo (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I took the picture with my camera, in a public exterior place in Santa Fe. You can't protect from reproduction art works placed outside in public parks. The question is, what license should be used here as a tag if PD is not appropriate.--AlainV (talk) 23:02, 7 January 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.

Keep now tagged as fair use, not PD, it seems there are no further objections. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Sentinel paper.JPG

File:The Sentinel paper.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Newspaper scan - Not PD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-license and keep Obviously not really a PD image, but could be re-licensed with a proper WP:FUR as the cover of a publication for use in the article as it does show the reader what the article's subject actually looks like and there is no other way to get such an image that does not infringe copyright. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've gone ahead and changed the license to Template:Non-free newspaper image. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 3 January 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⚡ 05:23, 6 January 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 ESkog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newark Liberty International Airport.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Professional-quality aerial photograph; unlikely uploader's own work, especially when considered in light of his/her other contributions. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind; found the original source here and deleted as a copyright violation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:51, 2 January 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: delete. There is no dispute that this image is non-free; the other discussions amount to an argument over policy, and this is the wrong venue for that. Chick Bowen 19:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:OnNotice1.jpeg

File:OnNotice1.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly, this is a screenshot from the Colbert Report that has been modified slightly. It is not the creators' own work and cannot be released under the license provided or used in user space. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What license is correct? I contacted the author of the program that modified the image, and he says that it is OK. It is based on a screenshot of the TV show. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the software can't release someone else's copyright to you. I don't think there is any Wikipedia-compatible license for such an image. At the very least it would need a valid fair use rationale, but even then fair use images can only be used in articles, not on user pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the software thinks it is protected by: "fair use" protection of 17 USC §107 afford me some small measure of protection, given the noncommercial nature of the work; the transformative and parodic natures of the work (both of which have been valid "fair use" defenses in IP case law); the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (a single frame out of literally millions); and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (unlikely to be significant). Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good as far as copyright law is concerned, but we are talking about Wikipedia:Image use policy. Fair use images can't be used on user pages, and to be used in an article they must have a valid fair use rationale attached for each usage. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not let the user take responsibility of what he puts on his page? Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a rather radical policy change, and well outside the scope of this discussion of one particular image. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously a bad policy. wp:Ignore all rules. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 18:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are taking this a little personally. It's not about you, it's about the usability of the image. Anyway, IAR reads, in it's entirety:"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." If you could explain how keeping this non-free image on your user page benefits the encyclopedia and how removing it would be harmful I'd be happy to reconsider my position. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It puts vandals and violators of 3RR "on notice". It says that unsourced material is bad, etc. I fail to see how Stephen Colbert, his show, or Comedy Central is harmed in any way. In a court of law they would have to show that some damage has been done or they were harmed in some way. If I get any complaint at all from them I'll remove it in a heartbeat.

I don't know how else to tell you that this is not a court of law, it is a discussion of whether this image is used in a way permitted by Wikipedia's image use policy, which I have already linked to above. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a problem, even in a court of law. I don't think they would have a case. And if it isn't a problem legally, it certainly shouldn't be a problem here. It is on my talk page so that vandals, people soft on vandalism, 3RR violators, and people complaining about unsourced material being tagged or removed will know that they will probably get no sympathy from me. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 05:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to want to understand what the issue is here. The legality of the image or whether anyone is "harmed" by it is utterly irrelevant to this conversation. The only issue, which you seem to be refusing to discuss, is whether it is compatible with Wikipedia policies regarding image use. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legal problem and I don't see how it hurts Wikipedia in any way. What you don't understand and refuse to discuss is "how does it hurt Wikipedia?" Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 03:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's against Wikipedia policy, see WP:IUP and WP:F. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 8 January 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.