Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< October 9 October 11 >

October 10

File:Uniss.jpg

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leonard Beyers.jpg

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: moot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leonard Beyers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • It says that this photo is in the public domain because it was published at least 50 years ago. However, the identified publication is from 1979, which is less than 50 years ago. Additionally, the photo needs to be in the public domain in the United States, which requires publication before 1946. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding the publication date, the guy died in 1959 so the pic had to have been published before then. As I cannot definitively yet say when this was taken I will revert the PD tag. Gbawden (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there are a lot of photos which have never been published. I have lots of family photos which were taken by my parents and grandparents, but they are all unpublished since they wouldn't be interesting for anyone outside my family. Press photographers often take dozens of photos of the same thing, but in the end they only use at most one photo. Isn't there a possibility that these photos might have been used for some internal matters without being published? I don't mind keeping them as fair use, but they shouldn't be listed as PD if they're not PD. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 11 October 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.

File:Hector Daniel.jpg

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: moot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hector Daniel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • It says that this is in the public domain because it was published at least 50 years ago, but the only identified publication is from 1979, which is less than 50 years ago. Also, Wikipedia requires the file to be in the public domain in the United States, which requires publication before 1946. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding the publication date, the guy died in 1953 so the pic had to have been published before then. As I cannot definitively yet say when this was taken I will revert the PD tag - although it is still PD in SA. Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 11 October 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.

File:Aa filton near Bristol UK 1935.jpg

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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aa filton near Bristol UK 1935.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • If so, dozens of old-Ordnance-Survey - derived Wikipedia images will have to be deleted? What is all this legal junk? I thought that "out of copyright" means "out of copyright" means "anyone can copy it". What is this "licence to scan" as distinct from ordinary (current or time-expired) copyright? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, if you scan a map, even if the map is out of copyright, you own copyright of that scan. I have numerous scans of old OS maps in good condition obtained from legal deposit libraries, but I cannot use any of them on Wikipedia because the libraries own the copyright. I have received legal advice from the British Library about this. So, unfortunately, these files will have to go unless the copyright holder consents to them. On the other hand, if you scan an old out of copyright map yourself, that can be used. Now, the good news is that OpenStreetMap has lots of out of copyright Ordnance Survey mapping which should be a suitable free replacement for all these. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell that to The British Library's legal team, not me! Anyway, regarding old OS mapping on OpenStreetMap, I meant things like the New Popular Edition mapping (see this documentation) which dates from around 1945. Regarding Heathrow - I've actually got a great solution - I have a 1934 OS map of Heathrow pre-airport right here that I personally scanned and I can upload it now with a suitable Commons licence. I'll do it now. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got the whole of England and Wales from the 1920s at half inch scale that I personally scanned, and I don't mind doing small segments for. I help run SABRE Maps, an old maps website - I don't really like to plug it on WP much because I think it raises conflict of interest issues, and its licence is incompatible with Wikipedia's, so it's kind of useless for here anyway. Still, have a look and see if there's anything in the "Historic OS Maps" area that you might be interested in. Don't screen grab off that directly, because most of it is copyrighted - I'll need to go back to the original scans. Regarding the Ponies site, Media Copyright Questions is probably the place to go as it has several experts there - I have contacted the site owner in the past, but I think the issue with WP's CC licence is it can be shared around for anyone anywhere, which he was a bit uncomfortable with. He might be okay with small extracts authorised by WP:OTRS. By the way, I apologise if I sounded a little blunt - I think it's because I get frustrated when people ask me "why can't we have a map of 'x'" when copyright restrictions prevent me from doing so. Hey ho. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the fundamental problem with this argument is the assertion that a 2d scan of a free object becomes a work of art and subject to a new license. What rot. Unless you have evidence to support this argument I can't see any merit in the argument at all and the policy on commons supports this view. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easiest evidence I can give is the licensing terms and conditions for old-maps.co.uk. The original maps they have digitised are very much out of copyright, but what you can see online is not. Or, the numerous Ordnance Survey maps in the National Library of Scotland are covered by this copyright statement which says : "Written permission must be obtained in advance to reproduce any digital material from the Library's collections, whether in hard copy or electronic forms.". Bottom line is, very much unlike the US, where federal maps are generally public domain, the OS is self-funded and must sustain its own working costs, so it comes down hard on copyright violations, particularly something of Wikipedia's scale. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite any policy, guideline or legal precedent to support your argument? While old maps asserts a right ti use the images under license from the ordnance survey the OS' own website says inter alia Crown copyright exists in Ordnance Survey mapping for 50 years from the end of the year in which it was published. You can copy mapping that is older than this without a licence from us. ... You are not obliged to include an acknowldegment on any copies of out of copyright mapping. So the OS says the original images are out of license and that they can be reproduced without acknowledgement or permission. That is the definition of PD. The issue is whether the digitisation of the images creates a new license. The OS makes the digitalised maps available for purchase but its is noticeable that the site makes no claim to a license for the scans. Just that the data set is available from the same company that Old maps asserts that they recieved the images from. What this suggests to me is that a) The maps are out of copyright and are PD in their own right & b) that old-maps purchased the digitalised images from the OS via a third company and that the OS asserts no license over this material. This places the onus on you to show quite clearly that there is a valid license over the digitalised images being used on that site Spartaz Humbug! 17:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you cite exactly what the advice says rather than expecting me to send off emails to find it? I'm curious why you asked the British Library and not the OS itself. Also, are the BL an authority of US copyright law as that is the determinating factor here? Sorry but I'm not impressed by the call to authority when it doesn't include any real explanation of how PD maps are now subject to a non-free license. Perhaps you can expand on this? Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you stop getting aggressive and taking things personally when somebody says your opinion may not actually be fact? Incidentally, I did ask the OS as well, and although we went round the houses several times in discussions, consensus came back as "no, you can't do this" --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) What's the problem here? The original map is {{PD-UKGov}}. This site contains an old map with a modern Google map on top, but lists the licence as CC-BY-NC-SA (= unfree). Obviously, we can't use the Google map, but if the scan is a faithful reproduction of the original 1961 map, then the scanning process doesn't generate a new copyright in the United States (although the person scanning the map might get copyright protection in the United Kingdom). However, the good thing is that Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States. Isn't this simply {{PD-Art|PD-UKGov}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I was about to follow that up. Richie keeps going on about Old-maps.co.uk but they are not the source and the image was taken from this site that makes no claims to license and acknowledges the maps are out of copyright. We already know from my reasearch that the dataset of disgitalised maps are available from an OS commerical partner so old-maps cannot assert any specific rights except for the material on its site. Since we never got the material from there its entirely irrelevant and the material is noted to be out of copyright on the site where the scan was taken. Spartaz Humbug! 18:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finally, the decision tree at commonds derivative works and the policy around [maps] is pretty clear here. Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting how mentioning old-maps once as an example (and providing a second example that you ignored) is "going on about it", but my understanding is that copyright of a work is automatically asserted on publication of web content, at least since 1977. The Ponies website has also georeferenced and tiled the maps to align with a WGS84 projection, so I would argue it's not an original scan in the first place. As I've also said, I'm happy to provide alternative maps scans at my end that are definitely free. So what exactly is the issue? I've sought legal advice. Have you? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At http://www.ponies.me.uk/maps/osmap.html , if the map is old-and-new overlaid, under the left half of the map is a slider. If the slider is pushed all the way to the left, the modern overlay disappears. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern inventions change things. Old-type copying with pen and ink was a fullscale artistic job. The coming of photocopying and similar changed things. Same as, in Britain with game preservation, possession of game out of season was proof of poaching -- until home freezers became common. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the above put to one side, here's why I'm interesting in getting this right. I think the user interface to old-maps.co.uk is awful and can personally do a better job. From what you are saying, I could go to the WM foundation, attempt to get hosting from them for historical, out-of-copyright maps, write a script to scrape old-maps, stick the whole lot on the server, and put a nicer UI round that, and that is all legally fine. Do you honestly think that is a goer? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good example of Commons:Template:PD-scan. Not copyrightable in the USA, and WMF has permitted such images regardless of local laws: read the quote from Erik Möller at Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, which is clearly applicable to scans of PD papers as well as photos of PD paintings. Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Darwin Online may also be of interest. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 17 October 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.

File:Abar Bocchor Tirish Pore 1.jpg

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abar Bocchor Tirish Pore 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:AbarBochhorTirishPore.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:SaintRokas.jpg

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rebecca Frayn Photo.jpeg

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rebecca Frayn Photo.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Florian Marciniak.jpg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Florian Marciniak.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Davis.jpg

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: close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wendy robie flight attendant in 2012.jpg

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wendy robie flight attendant in 2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:AnnieSydneyLyricTheatre.jpg

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bacon and Eggs, oil on canvas, 2008.jpg

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bacon and Eggs, oil on canvas, 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Turning Points sculpture on the Wright State University campus, also known as BART.jpg

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turning Points sculpture on the Wright State University campus, also known as BART.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:BoeBotRobot.png

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Australian Postage Stamp - Hamilton Hume & William Hovell.jpg

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australian Postage Stamp - Hamilton Hume & William Hovell.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Bosniak croat war.png

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⚡ 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bosniak croat war.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

I haven't been on wikipedia (or commons) and those files were deleted just because nobody objected. Quoted reasons for deletion are author right's, but those are all diferent files from diferent periods and no exact reasons for all of them (except one) for deletion is given. --Čeha (razgovor) 07:09, 11 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_10&oldid=1082504573"