Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot From Tim Hagan's Facebook Page.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Screenshot of a Facebook profile. Clearly non-free. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 27 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 but mark as missing permission. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:John L. Saksun on the cover of Canada's Globe & Mail newspaper on April 9, 1983.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I can see no reason to assume that this is PD, regardless of how widely-read the newspaper is. J Milburn (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition, the Saksun family was authorized to redistribute the article/picture. It has appeared in advertisements for Accuform Golf since the 1980s and I have authorization from them to post it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncoutoulakis2 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in ads doesn't make it PD and there's no evidence of the permission you claim to have. Eeekster (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in ads would make it PD because the Saksuns therefore clearly had the right to redistribute it. And I do have permission. Please let me know how i can go about proving I have permission, instead of just stating there's no evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.90.27 (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Appearing in ads would make it PD because the Saksuns therefore clearly had the right to redistribute it." Read that back to yourself. If you believe it makes any sense at all, please read public domain. What permission do you believe you have? J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is really PD, why would you need the permission you claim to have? Eeekster (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see it makes sense. He/she is saying the saksuns had the right to redistribute it and he received permission from them. I also think you should tell this individual how they might go about proving they have permission, rather than instead just making silly comments like "what permission do you believe you have". Finally, this entire discussion is silly, as all pictures originally appear in articles/newspapers/websites/etc before making their way to wikipeida. I see no reason why a picture that appeared in a paper 30 years ago should not be allowed. On that basis, half the pictures on this website should not be allowed.

I am asking what permission the user believes they have because unless I know that, I cannot advise on how they prove it. It's useless me explaining how to foward an email expressing the explicit release of content into the public domain from the newspaper publisher to a Wikimedia OTRS address if the permission the user beleives they have is a friend saying "yeah, you can probably put it on Wikipedia". J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying he has been given permission isn't good enough, especially when he refuses to say exactly what that permission is. And just because you see no reason why a picture that appeared in a paper 30 years ago should not be allowed doesn't mean that it should be. At this point we do not know the real copyright status of the image and there is no evidence of the permission that continues to be claimed. Eeekster (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for helping with this. Okay so i have permission from John Saksun himself, how would you like me to verify that? He can also provide an Accuform Golf advertisement, proving that the newspaper gave him authorization to use the picture/article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncoutoulakis2 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an acceptable permission, follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Keep in mind that the image shows both the photo and some text from the newspaper and that you need permission both from the copyright holder of the text and from the copyright holder of the photo. This may involve multiple copyright holders. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 31 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⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mango.Bloem-1726.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unlikely to be the work of the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 01:36, 27 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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alireza Afzalipour.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I doubt that this is the user's own work. From years ago, web resolution. J Milburn (talk) 09:32, 27 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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dumaka Francis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image has "all rights reserved" on it in a watermark.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 27 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⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madison High crown.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Yearbook image. Copyright is not like owned by the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 17:16, 27 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⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:1963 Class Ring.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Scanned from published work. Eeekster (talk) 17:17, 27 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warner Rojas Chinchilla.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploaded as part of AFC submission. While I have accepted the AFC article itself, I do not believe this image is public domain as stated in the upload. KTC (talk) 17:18, 27 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: Kept and marked {{watermark}} per the comment on the talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Appears to be scanned from printed image Eeekster (talk) 17:20, 27 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⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:TMV6x6M SF.12.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source statement is confusion and may imply the sources it not the uploader as claimed. Eeekster (talk) 17:37, 27 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 but mark as missing permission. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi Personal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Published in a smaller size at http://www.desiprimeminister.com/2009_06_01_archive.html Eeekster (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user who uploaded the image has stated on the article talk page that he/she works for Naqvi. It seems likely that the person has the appropriate authority to release the image under CCbySA, and they have tagged the image as such.--Srleffler (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but for images found elsewhere on the Internet with an earlier date, OTRS should be used, see WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 31 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⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mrs. Whitney and Edel.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source of image is not clear - seems to be some sort of e-mail attachment - from who?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:09, 27 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⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kunlunshan998.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Please check this source. The first image in the external link was published July 19, 2010 and has higher resolution. The orientation of the flags are even the same in both images. Mys 721tx (talk) 21:10, 27 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⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mrs. Whitney and Edel.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See File:Mrs. Whitney and Edel.pdf above - this is a cropped version taken from the pdf.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:10, 27 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 - all tagged FoP-USonly; if any are necessarily de minimis, feel free to alter the tag and move to Commons if you're sure (although good luck figuring out de minimis law in Mongolia). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture of Mongolian Stock Exchange.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Front image of Mongolian Stock Exchange.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Master Service Agreement by MSE and LSE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Trading floor of Mongolian Stock Exchange.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No Freedom of panorama for buildings in Mongolia - usage allowed is non-commercial only - see commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Mongolia  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The building only appears as de minimis in File:Master Service Agreement by MSE and LSE.jpg since you only see an insignificant part of the ceiling. For the rest, just add {{FoP-USonly}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 31 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⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SMDCrest2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader had likely no right to place the picture into the public domain, as this is the crest of Sigma Mu Delta. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 23:38, 27 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.