Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 28

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: Remove {{PD-US-no notice}} tag. —Bkell (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ACT Characters.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a screenshot of A Canterbury Tale, a British film from 1944. It has a non-free use rationale that appears to be acceptable. However, it also contains a {{PD-US-no notice}} tag, claiming that it is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. This statement seems to be incorrect, but I'm listing it here to see if anyone can shed more light on it. —Bkell (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was legal according to the rules in place when I uploaded it. But the rules have been changed so often that I gave up caring about Wikipedia, especially as regards images, long ago. Wikipedia started off as a good idea but is rapidly destroying itself and making it impossible to add any decent information -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the use of this image on Wikipedia or the rationale you wrote; I am just questioning the claim that this image is in the public domain. If it is in the public domain, which seems unlikely to me, then we don't need the fair use rationale. If it isn't in the public domain, then we need to remove the {{PD-US-no notice}} tag, but the image can remain on Wikipedia under the non-free content policy. I'm just attempting to clarify the copyright status of this image. That's what Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files is for, after all. —Bkell (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've long lost any interest in trying to justify the rationale as to why an image is allowable on Wikipedia. Whenever I justify it, according to the rules in effect at the time, someone changes the rules. It's happened loads of times. As far as I'm concerned you can delete every single image on the site. That's what it has been heading towards for some time now. I only keep a watching brief on the site to correct any of the extremes of vandalism that the site is still plagued by. I just monitor a few pages that I'm particularly interested in. I don't care what happens on any other pages -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: There is nothing wrong with the rationale, and I am not proposing this image for deletion. The only question here is whether the image is in the public domain. If it is in the public domain, we don't need a rationale; if it is not in the public domain, we should remove the {{PD-US-no notice}} tag from the description page. Either way, the image is acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. —Bkell (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because no reason has been given for deletion. If the nominator thinks it may be appropriate to remove the {{PD-US-no notice}} tag he could simply remove it, or investigate things, or discuss with others interested in such arcane matters, or otherwise, but not come here please. This forum is not for files that are tagged with a non-free template (see instructions above). I know there is also a PD tag but the matter should be handled in a sensible and constructive manner. Perhaps the nominator does not understand why the nomination here is unhelpful to the uploader, other uploaders, and to the encyclopedia. The licensing issue does not have any bearing on whether the file should be deleted. Indeed there seems to be consensus that such submissions should be closed.[1] Contrary to the denials above of potential deletion, the {{puf}} tagging has led to "If you don't want the file deleted, please provide explanatory information about the copyright status of this image" being reported in the file description and "The file File:ACT Characters.jpg has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted" appearing in the image legend within A Canterbury Tale, neither of which are intended or appropriate. Please realise that such actions, although they might possibly sort out fine points of detail, do not advance Wikipedia's copyright compliance nor improve the encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention. Thincat (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course this is a "keep." Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files is not a deletion page—it's not Wikipedia:Files for deletion. "Keep" or "delete" votes are not what this page is about. The purpose of PUF is "for listing and discussing files that are marked as available under a free license or public domain, but have disputed source or licensing information." This is a forum to investigate the copyright status of files. I am trying to be sensible and constructive here. You suggest that I should "investigate things" or "discuss with others interested in such arcane manners"—that's exactly what I'm trying to do here. What other forum do you suggest would be more appropriate? The templates for PUF are apparently misworded for cases like this, since they suggest that PUF is a forum for discussing the deletion of images. This file was tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}}, which makes the explicit claim that the file is in the public domain. If that is not true, then removing the tag certainly makes the tagging more accurate, and that is a direct improvement to Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The result of a discussion with the uploader is that the film does contain a copyright notice ("© 1944 Independent Film Distributors, Ltd."), so I have removed the {{PD-US-no notice}} tag. —Bkell (talk) 13:40, 31 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⚡ 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Staff JB.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems to have been copied from Jim Breen's page on Monash. There is no indication on the file's page that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder of that image and has the right to place it in the public domain. pne (talk) 07:20, 28 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⚡ 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Janine Doyon Brian McNamara Julia Campbell Tillamook Treasure.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Watermark clearly states that file is copyrighted by the Bright Light Studio. Needs OTRS permission. — Bill william compton^Talk 07:25, 28 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⚡ 04:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chia-homer.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Awesome, but unfortunately also derivative of copyrighted work (Homer) Bulwersator (talk) 14:34, 28 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⚡ 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:RUN BABY RUN Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Film poster. I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 28 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chief Flying Hawk, Buffalo Bill'd Wild West, Cast Card.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no evidence that "Unknown" released this to the public domain. Also, there is no evidence of publication, so {{PD-1923}} can't be assumed. This page says "Date: October 8, 1913 [1962-08-3708]". I'm wondering if the 1962 stuff might mean that this was kept unpublished in some drawer somewhere and wasn't published or discovered until 1962. If it was first published in 1962, then it may be copyrighted for 95 years since 1962. Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• See User talk:Stefan2#Chief Flying Hawk: the uploader claims that it is an undated postcard, presumably from the 1920s or 1930s. Since postcards from that time had to contain a copyright notice, and since copyright notices had to contain a year, doesn't this mean that the photo is in the public domain? --Stefan2 (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On August 19 the uploader said the pic came from this source. The photograph is from the Wanamaker Collection, a set of 8,000 pictures taken between 1908 and 1923 by Joseph K. Dixon. Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks says (in part) that proof of publication is mandatory; uploaders making a "public domain" claim on a reproduction of an artwork are required to prove with verifiable details that the work was first published before 1923. That has not been done, so it has to be deleted. -- Dianna (talk) 23:49, 16 September 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 as F8; there is a better copy on the Commons. Dianna (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apollo11tv.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• file without source, speedy removed as somehow it is certain that this image is from NASA Bulwersator (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was clearly taken under microgravity conditions, and it's clearly Buzz Aldrin, when he was relatively young, so the only possible source is NASA. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to commons - I've added the source and improved the description. Since this is a NASA image it belongs on wikicommons.--Craigboy (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace I'd say. Very low quality. The NASA source page has a much better copy. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved and replace on Commons - thanks for source! Bulwersator (talk) 07:20, 15 September 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.