Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 13

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. File is tagged with a non-free license, so deletion through this venue is not possible. Further discussion may take place at WP:FFD if needed. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krüger, Friedrich-Wilhelm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Insufficient information about copyright status in the US. Also, the cited source page lists an image credit of "Ullstein Bilderdienst 5 33246 -c0", not sure if that is an author disclosure sufficient to void the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag as well. —Darkwind (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have updated the file to non-free fair use. Please do not delete the file.Hoops gza (talk) 00:23, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 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⚡ 02:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karl August Frenzel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is insufficient by itself; also the cited source website claims copyright. —Darkwind (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Likely taken when he was in office during the Nazi era. If taken in 1926 or later, it is unfree in the United States because of the URAA, and if taken earlier it might also be unfree in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 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⚡ 02:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Niddrie.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As outlined in the comments, permission obtained from State Library of Victoria -E! E! (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it taken by an employee of the State Library of Victoria? If not, the permission is probably invalid. Besides, there is no OTRS ticket listed. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 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 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MG-OlliverDillard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed to be PD-USGov as an army staff photo, but no precise source given, and exif data asserts somebody's copyright. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Wikipedia user Perkins FC assisted with scanning and editing the original photograph to remove the damage from MG Dillard's uniform. I am a new editor and unsure how to do this properly, but I am sure Perkins would gladly release the image, since he produced it specifically to asset with this article. The original photograph was taken in the late 1970s by an official photographer as part of a military ceremony at Fort Dix New Jersey, and was in the possession of the Dillard family as a small photograph. The uploaded image was produced directly from the photograph specifically for inclusion on the Wikipedia page. The next best image I have of him was hung on the wall at Fort McPherson GA for many years and is very sun faded. Wwilloughby (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Wwilloughby is correct. This photo was taken by an official US government photographer; I scanned it. I have the original in my possession. It is a part of the official research that I used to produce a forthcoming article in Military Intelligence magazine. My Lightroom default may have used a copyright embed. If you consider this "my" photo now, I will allow its use without reservation. Perkins FC2 (talk) 03:09, 14 May 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⚡ 02:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bust of Chester W. Nimitz by de Weldon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph of a sculpture in a US military museum. Photograph described as PD-USGov, but not covered under F.o.P.; sculpture presumably copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is a public-domain U.S. Navy photo posted on a public-domain U.S. Navy Web site of a sculpture donated to the U.S. Navy's Naval War College on 5 June 1964 and resident in the U.S. Navy's Naval War College Museum. It is not on loan to the museum, and is part of the museum's collection as a piece of U.S. Navy property. Perhaps some intrinsic copyright related to the bust itself has survived since the bust became U.S. Navy property in 1964 – I'll leave it to others more familiar with the specifics of art images donated to the U.S. Government to puzzle that one out – but I don't think that U.S. Navy property can be copyrighted any more than U.S. Navy photos (or photos of that property) can, regardless of who built or created that property. Mdnavman (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

Note as an analogous situation the image File:JoelRPPringle USN.jpg, a portrait painted for the Naval War College and in also in its collection, imaged at the College's Web site, retrieved in 2006, licensed via PD-USNavy and tagged for transfer to Wikimedai Commons. Are portrait paintings that become U.S. Navy property handled differently under copyright law from busts that become U.S. Navy property? Mdnavman (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

Copyright is unrelated to who physically owns a work; it depends solely on who created it. PD-USGov would come into play only if the artist made this work while working for the army as an employee, or under a "work for hire" arrangement. Failing that, the only possibility for it to be PD is if the artist failed to assert and/or register copyright according to the formalities then in force. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems that the bust was produced for the US government, but no evidence has been presented that it was produced by the US government. In fact, the comments suggest that this was not the case. Thus, the bust appears to be copyrighted. There is no freedom of panorama for busts in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 13 May 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⚡ 02:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Photograph sourced to a website that claims it's public domain [1]. Good faith upload here on Wikipedia, but the PD claim in the source is dubious. The site is not claiming own authorship and doesn't provide source and authorship attribution either. On its FAQ it states [2] that its "PD" pictures may have been "obtained from the public domain in good faith, but may have been released without the copyright holder's permission". This clearly indicates the authors have no clue about what "public domain" means (if it truly was PD, there'd be no copyright owner to ask); they also never bother to explain according to what legal situation they believe any of their photograph is PD. Apparently they think "PD" simply means "found it on the web somewhere". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know. It claimed PD so I uploaded it to try to illustrate an article. I wasn't maliciously adding it. I don't think it has a copyright due to the info on the website. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The source website doesn't seem to know what public domain means, so it isn't a reliable source for determining the copyright status of this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miss Nepal 2011 After Crowning, Kathmandu, Nepal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There are watermarks mentioning URLs. Possibly copied from there, no evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miss Nepal 2011 On the stage, kathmandu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Strange watermarks which could suggest copyvio. Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 13 May 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.