Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 27

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 F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montague high.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader seems to have uploaded many copyvios. There are two different files under this name and the old one appears to be a copyvio of this. Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 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 F9 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bluefield High School (Hampshire, Prince Edward Island).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Likely copyvio from here (dated 2004 according to wget). Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 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⚡ 21:13, 31 March 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 F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Dubious own work: it is a logo. Stefan2 (talk) 00:05, 27 March 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⚡ 02:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monument to Babushkin.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be listed as unfree on Russian Wikipedia: ru:Файл:PamyatnikBabushkin.JPG. Not sure why, but I'm guessing that freedom of panorama is the reason. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 27 March 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⚡ 02:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• ru:Файл:Khrenov.jpg appears to list it as copyrighted for some reason. Not sure why, but a likely guess is that the picture isn't PD-old yet. Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 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⚡ 03:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:White Cheburashka.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a toy. Stefan2 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 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 per discussion on Commons. {{Non-free Philippines government}} would appear to be incorrect, so nominating that template for deletion seems like a suitable option. — ξ^xplicit 23:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I tagged this as "no source no licence". A licence was added but no source. Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• how do I add a source? can you give me the tag? Just tag it Philippine Senate Hall (fixed attribution -> province of pampanga) Object404 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There is now some kind of source: "source: Office of the Governor of Pampanga, Philippines"

Is this enough? Does {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} require it to have been made at national level (as in the United States) or are also works of a local government in the public domain? The image appears here but there is no licensing information available. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. These paintings are meant to be displayed in public as much as possible courtesy of our home province, including the internet. "Photos courtesy of the Office of the Governor of Pampanga". Am trying to rescue information from dying into obscurity & link rot. Can we consider this closed? thanks.Object404 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there the same distinction in the Phillipines, which isn't a federation? —innotata 16:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. The painting may be under the public domain, but who actually took the picture? This is not given in the file's description. — ξ^xplicit 22:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed {{PD-Philippines|commons}} into {{PD-Art|PD-Philippines}}. But what is {{non-free Philippines government}} supposed to mean? It looks contradictory to {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. Asked at Commons:COM:VPC#Philippine government. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Also see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov. We might need to wait until that DR closes until we can close this one. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DR closed: "The quoted act explicitly says there is no copyright protection on government works", so looks like this file can be kept. —innotata 16:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. So what do we do now, take {{Non-free Philippines government}} to WP:TFD as faulty? Given the rather long discussion on Commons, I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to just apply WP:BOLD and change it myself; it may need a discussion here too. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 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⚡ 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prmfktkwcwm2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Screenshot of some sort of Koragg the Knight Wolf, which indicates copyright infringement. — ξ^xplicit 00:51, 27 March 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⚡ 03:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potok (Flow) Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work (company logo). Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 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⚡ 03:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Text on information page suggests that it is unpublished. Photographer unknown and taken after 1891 so {{PD-US-unpublished}} doesn't apply, so it seems to be copyrighted in the United States. The country of origin appears to be the United Kingdom and it seems that it is in the public domain there based on the special photo rules mentioned at Commons:COM:L#Ordinary copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 27 March 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⚡ 03:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethan black and white console eyes closed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears all over the web (e.g. here). Claimed to be a work of "a friend." Taken using "my phone" so I guess the original is digital but the "camera model" listed in the EXIF metadata seems to be some scanner for scanning camera negatives (see here). Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 27 March 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 based on the precautionary principle without prejudice to recreation if the uploader can give a compelling explanation of how s/he is so close to the subject, and why his/her photos were uploaded to other sites beforehand. As is, it's a bit sketchy. If the uploader comes back and sees this discussion and wants to give it another try but is uncomfortable explaning his/her close relationship with the subject publicly (e.g., close friend, family member, the subject himself), feel free to contact me via email or send it privately via email via Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. I apologize if I have indeed deleted legitimately licensed content and I'm just making the process more difficult. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethan with red lamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Also here with a modification date several years earlier than the Wikipedia upload date, but the resolution is much smaller. Date of creation in {{information}} is several years later than the date of creation in EXIF. Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't necessarily see anything to doubt the claim s/he took it, given that the uploader outright stated it was previously posted on Facebook. Can you think of a way we could have the uploader prove it (via OTRS if necessary)? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better if the user showed the page on Facebook where it is used and somehow confirmed that the Facebook account used for uploading it belongs to the Wikipedia user, but maybe I'm too picky. It appears in thumbnail size here with a modification time from 2010. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't see that this image is by the same uploader as the one above; that means that the uploader has a history of possible issues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:55, 4 April 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⚡ 03:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brisbane Skyline 2012 Kangaroo Point.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader has lifted five other images from the internet and has even cropped out a watermark on one of them. This is likely lifted but so far have not found the source, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exisit. The uploader's claim to be 2012 is wrong as the EXIF states it was taken on the 14 December 2011 and with the uploader's history I have doubts. Bidgee (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Make that six instead of five: one image has been moved to Commons (now discussed here). I remember searching for this image when it was uploaded a week ago without finding anything useful. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 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.