Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 21

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shard London Bridge Complete.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As The Shard is now complete and images of it exist, this image is replaceable and the fair use rationale is invalid. Kinu ^t/_c 06:00, 21 August 2012 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:14, 25 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trinity Western campus aerial.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image appears in http://www.ksastudents.com/vb/t8304-6.html and a larger version of it appears on http://twugolf.com/twu/twu-history/ and so very likely a campus publicity photo whose rights are not fully explained and the source of "My dad gave it to me" does not fully answer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• An even more clear version of the un-cropped file may be seen at http://twugolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Aerial-Shot.jpg . --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keith Law- Publicity 10.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid OTRS ticket - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard&oldid=508414445#Is_this_ticket_valid.3F Bulwersator (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:158thFADUI.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No convincing evidence that "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." Bulwersator (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What convincing evidence will suffice in light of already having provided the TIOH statements? I require evidence that there's anyone other than TIOH claiming copyright. RTO Trainer (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allen Hill Blue Plaque in Oxford.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not a work of artistic craftsmanship, so Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom doesn't apply. Stefan2 (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:PD-text? Bulwersator (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably too long for that. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a blue plaque, that is a public notice, not a work of art. There are seven functionally equivalent images at blue plaque, six of which are of plaques in the UK, and numerous other images of the same kind all over the project. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely, this is not a work for art. And Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom only applies to works of artistic craftsmanship. Since it is not a work of art, you are not allowed to take or distribute photos of it. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In essence I'm surprised that wikipedia has an entire page devoted to objects of this kind crammed with supposedly copyright infringing photographs and that none of the mavens have noticed it before. But such is life; I have removed the wikilink from Hugh Allen Oliver Hill and look forward to observing the massacre of equivalent photographs which will no doubt ensue. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of them will survive as Template:PD-text, this one is borderline (text is quite long) Bulwersator (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are literally hundreds of such images on the project [1]. Some have significantly longer texts, e.g. the plaque at Francis Lovell, 1st Viscount Lovell and the three plaques at Llantwit Major. Several are found in featured articles such as J. R. R. Tolkien. Enjoy. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:3DStreetPainting.F.MelanieStimmell.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of street painting Bulwersator (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lionsheadcap.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of copyrighted image on cap. +ridiculously blurry (but used) Bulwersator (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a silly question, but if File:Lionsheadcap.PNG is problematic from a copyright viewpoint then why is File:Lionsheadbottle.png OK? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I assume that there is actually no difference between these cases and this is simply an example of selective enforcement? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I go randomly through 180k files (Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates) and either copy to Commons or nominate for deletion Bulwersator (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for confirming that this entire process is essentially arbitrary. Your candor is appreciated. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soraida Martinez 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems to be copyvio - note small resolution, missing EXIF and red line at bottom (I think that it is screengrab from somewhere with red background) Bulwersator (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rapid Solicitors Elite League Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks quite complex, so I'm not convinced that it really is ineligible for copyright. Compare with the examples of copyrighted images at this page. Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2012 (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 discussion was: keep Magog the Ogre (t • c) 06:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Salette of Roxas High School Department.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this image is free, but it is also suggested that it is unfree: "Use of the logo in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use under United States copyright law as described above." Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the work of the uploader, who has released the photo under a dual license and was being extra careful when trying to explain the existence of the school logo. In actuality, the correct justification for the inclusion of the logo is not fair use, but de minimis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear case of de minimis. I removed unnecessary text from file description Bulwersator (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:JeroenThesselingLiveSouthAmericaPestilence2011.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "We hereby give you permission to use following photos for all Wikipedia articles related and/or linked to Jeroen Paul Thesseling." Seems that it is "permission for Wikipedia" + CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0. This is not enough. Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:JPTbyDhorlbogen2011.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "We hereby give you permission to use following photos for all Wikipedia articles related and/or linked to Jeroen Paul Thesseling." Seems that it is "permission for Wikipedia" + CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0. This is not enough. Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2012 (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 discussion was: Delete Magog the Ogre (t • c) 06:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The new upload by User:PUSHKAR SAPEDIYA has neither source nor licence. Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2012 (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 discussion was: Keep as fair-use. Dianna (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bishop Dubois High School.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Improperly sourced. Which yearbook? Are you supposed to check all of them from every year in order to verify whether the copyright notice statement is correct? Stefan2 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as non-free image of demolished building. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about WP:NFCC#10a? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of 10a appears to be to evaluate its market value, and since it's not a recent photo, the market value won't be affected by the year of the yearbook. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 31 August 2012 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:14, 25 August 2012 (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 F7 by The JPS (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dubois2004b.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This seems to have been taken with modern (21st century) camera technology, so the claim that this was published before 1978 is dubious. Also, it doesn't say where it was published, so there is no way to verify that the publication was without a copyright notice. Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2012 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:14, 25 August 2012 (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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No evidence of CC licensing. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open source. Free for distribution. Created to be used for the show in mags, websites, Wikipedia, etc. Multnomahblues (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please link to site that confirms this Bulwersator (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sons of the American Revolution, The Wigwam, Du Bois, PA, 1940.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this was published before 1923, but the uploader provides no evidence of any publication. Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camis Eskan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems to be scanned from a book. Stefan2 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2012 (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 discussion was: keep Magog the Ogre (t • c) 06:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Israel McCreight, 1883.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this was published somewhere before 1923, but it does not say where it was published, so there is no way to verify this. In fact, the frame around the photo suggest that it could easily be a private unpublished photo. Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unless you can find a copy of the magazine, we assume good faith that what the uploader said is true. In this case, the uploader has also written articles with things sourced to page 29 in the magazine. It is beyond fair to assume good faith that he is correct in the 1883 source date. Ryan Vesey 18:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploader didn't write that it was published before 1923. The page used to say that the copyright holder has released the image to the public domain, without any evidence of this claim. The PD-1923 template was added by you. Were you aware of any pre-1923 publication when you added the template? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The uploader gave the date as 1883. So they didn't use a specific template, what's your point? The first template placed on the image doesn't signify it's copyright status. If you are trying to argue that this was first published in 2005, then Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished applies. The author in this case is unknown so {{PD-anon-1923}} would also apply. No matter which way you look at this, the image is in the public domain. See Occam's razor to dissuade further arguments. Ryan Vesey 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read the 1883 year as a year of creation, not as a year of publication. The uploader didn't specify whether the image has been published before 2005 or not. I realise that I made a mistake when looking at this year: 1883 is more than 120 years ago, so it would also be fine if unpublished. Since it is more than 120 years old, I suppose that it is fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (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 discussion was: Deleted the non-free revision; kept the image that is licensed CC by-SA 3.0. Dianna (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warsow Screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• From Warsow (video game):

Warsow’s codebase is free and open source software, distributed under the terms of the GPL; it is built upon Qfusion, an advanced modification of the Quake II engine. The artwork and other media are licensed under the proprietary Warsow Content License, which allows the contributors of this media to use the work in a "personal portfolio" but not in any other game.

To me this sounds unfree (and not completely GPL): you can't use the artwork for other games. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your logic is flawed on so many levels it isn't even funny. You don't understand the license, you are confusing screenshots of game play with actual game assets, and also don't get fair use policy on video game screenshots. The artwork and other media are included in the source code, and they are saying you can't use them to make another game for profit. But you can do things like use the textures or player models to learn from or make personal games. They are not talking about screenshots taken from actual game play. Otherwise there would be no screenshots of any proprietary games out there. It's fair use.

The file that was just used to replace mine was taken from the official web site and it water marked. If you don't like that, then revert it back to mine and move on. Stop wasting everyone's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slacka123 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't use the artwork to create another game to make money, then that makes the image unfree, see {{db-f3}} or freedomdefined:Definition. You must be allowed to use the artwork for any purpose.

There are multiple ways to combine GPL software with non-GPL software, so the game artwork doesn't have to be available as GPL, and the above text suggests that the artwork isn't available under the GPL.

The problems listed above apply to both versions of the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not using the screenshot of a game to make money. It's Fair Use like every other video game screenshot on Wikipedia. You are confusing the game assets with a game play screenshots. The screenshot taken uses the GPL'd engine to process the non-free artwork to make an image. A screenshot of this image cannot be used to make a game, which is clearly the intent of the license. A screenshot is not a game asset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slacka123 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I just read the license on the warsow SDK. It is clearly intented to prevent commercial games from copying their work. They are not trying to prevent screenshots from the game itself. Even if they were, wikipedia could still use it under fair use and not prevented by some .txt file in the SDK. NeedCokeNow (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not indicated as a fair use image, though. It is indicated as a GPL image. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I added the Video Game Fair Use Screenshot template. Happy? Now, please remove your copyright infringement notice. Slacka123 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from the authors to use the images. The images are distributed in a press pack, and are free to use by anyone. --Clownfart (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please properly document this? In the mean time, I have reverted a standard screenshot taken during game play. Once you have it all fully documented it, please revert it back to your image from the press pack. Slacka123 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I document this? Does it need to be released under a license or something? --Clownfart (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the File:Warsow Screenshot.jpg page, post any information you have backing up your claim that granted permission to use the material in the press pack.

• Stefan2, From the actual license.txt. :

Code is under GPL license, this means you can get all our source code, study it and reuse it as soon as you keep it open and give back to us your changes. All artwork, musics, dialogues, stories, names, 3d models, etc... are under a proprietary license. If you plan to create another game based on our source code, remember you will have to redo all art,music,models,stories,etc...

There is no mention of user generated screenshots from game play footage. They are only trying to protect the game assets and website content from being used by commercial games. Besides this is a moot topic, since no matter what the license.txt file in the separate SDK says, video game screenshots are covered under Fair Use.

What do you want done so you can drop this stupid argument and stop wasting all of our time? Slacka123 (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem there is there are two screenshots. The Original, uploaded by User:Slacka123 is clearly covered under Fair Use law. The SDK's license is irrevalent. The new file, uploaded uploaded by User:Clownfart, is from a press pack and may be covered under some other license. I think the best solution is for Clownfart to reupload his file with a new filename, and properly document his right to use it.

In the mean time, the original has been reverted, so I see no reason to continue this debate. NeedCokeNow (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Note: Files can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or verifiably licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:File copyright tags for more on these)." The file now has the proper tags. I am going to unlist the file unless Stefan2 can provide further reason to keep it here. Slacka123 (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still a GPL licence claim although the screenshot obviously isn't covered by the GPL licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put both there because the software IS GPL'd in addition, the game assets are covered by their own propitiatory license. So both the GPL'd software screenshot AND the proprietary screenshot license apply. Just putting a non-free screenshot template there doesn't make sense, because it is a screenshot of GPL'd software. However, if it really bothers you. I will remove the GPL, and just leave the proprietary license. Please respond. Slacka123 (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only the backend is available as GPL, but the photo only shows the frontend. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are going to use CS termanology, at least use the terms discussed in the license.txt file of the SDK. The GPL covers the Game engine while the secondary license covers the Game asset. The Screenshot is not a "PHOTO" as you call it or a Game Asset. Rather it is a derived work of the two created by an artist( or gamer) who create the scene and capures it. In the GPL'd software template they give examples of additional licenses used for the content.
        • This files with is clearly within fair use. I have removed the offending "GPD'd" tag. Now if you have no further objections, can you please unlist this so we can all get back to contributing to wikipedia. NeedCokeNow (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Please don't delete discussions. When they end, they are supposed to be closed using {{subst:puf top}} and {{subst:puf bottom}}.
• I see that this page tells that the screenshots on that page are available under {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Did I previously overlook the text, or is it a new addition?
• The file uploaded by User:Clownfart is from the mentioned page, so it seems that his image is available under the Creative Commons licence. The file by User:Slacka123 does not seem to be on that page, so I guess that his file should be treated as unfree and deleted as an orphaned unfree file. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefan2, you are acting like a big baby here, it's clear you are saying anything to try to win your argement. Do you have some problem with Warsow? First of all, slacka123 only reverted the old image, because you did not answer clowfarts requests on how he could prove that the develoopers gave him permission to use it to promote warsow ( see above discussion). Second of all,we have already established that screenshots are covered under fair use. Please stop this rediculousness. NeedCokeNow (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2012 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:14, 25 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jim-Balfanz-Headshot.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyright violation: [2]. User:Nyttend removed the {{db-f9}} tag with the motivation that Wordpress has a smaller image. However, the file size on Wordpress is totally irrelevant. It just means that Wordpress isn't the original source, but the only thing we need to prove is that Wikipedia isn't the source either. Since the file was on Wordpress before it was on Wikipedia, Wikipedia can impossibly be the original source. Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jasenovac1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jasenovac1.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2012 (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.