Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 16
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
| < October 15 | October 17 > |
|---|
October 16
- 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 Ticket:2012101610000384. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TheStarGame.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be a screen capture of a game. Eeekster (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, this game is all my own work (published as Mequa Innovations), and the star textures from NASA which are used are in the public domain. I wished to release this screenshot under the license specified. Mequa (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2012 (GMT+1)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Mequa: Would you please submit your permission to OTRS? See Wikipedia:Permission#When permission is confirmed to do this. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Permission has been submitted to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org.
Mequa (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you get a ticket number back? SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:09, 16 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.
- 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. No evidence of permission. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was tagged as a copyvio of one of the images at http://carlettascutleryandgifts.com/gift_sets. It's definitely copied from there, but the EXIF metadata include a statement of "Copyright status: Public domain", so it's not an unambiguous copyvio. I don't know whether this kind of thing can be faked, and I don't know how to check the metadata for the image on the website without uploading this image here. As a result, I'm quite confused by the whole situation. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, interesting. I entirely missed that. In principle, any EXIF can be faked, but usually you will find that the EXIF is genuine. You can use a program such as Exiftool to change or read the EXIF of any image. Commons:COM:EXIF also lists some other tools.
- Exiftool reports "Copyright Flag: False" for File:Rada Cutlery Knife Block.jpg. Is this what causes Wikipedia to report "Copyright Status: Public domain"? The images on the website do not have "Copyright Flag: False". --Stefan2 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no clue. All I know is that I see "Public domain" next to "Copyright status" when I click the "Show extended details" at the bottom left of the description page. I've left a note at WP:RD/C asking for technical help here. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- EXIF data is trivial to forge, as Stefan2 says. Would you trust the metadata in [[:|this image]]? If you don't trust the uploader (or anyone downstream of them) you can't trust the metadata. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is not whether EXIF can be forged (as you showed with), but where "Copyright status: Public domain" comes from. Does it come from the "Copyright Flag: False" stuff? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- EXIF data is trivial to forge, as Stefan2 says. Would you trust the metadata in [[:|this image]]? If you don't trust the uploader (or anyone downstream of them) you can't trust the metadata. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader is a single-purpose promotional account for that cutlery company, and has submitted OTRS clearance for some other image(s) of similar kinds they uploaded, so I'd be inclined to believe their authorship claim. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 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.
- 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⚡ 12:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:189671 194.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- No permission from the actual copyright holder (the photographer). Stated permission from the band, and upload by the fan (also in picture), are largely irrelevant to whether we have permission from the copyright holder. 99of9 (talk) 12:39, 16 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.
Various photos of puppets
- 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 all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SatyaSonali.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:SatyaShekhar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:SatyaKirron.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Satyajitphoto.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Satyafamily.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Satya.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:RamdasLijjatPapad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:AamirRamdasPuppet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:ChotuSingh&Satyajit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:PhoonkPuppet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:PoliticanPuppet1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:PreityRamdas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Various photos of puppets. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 16 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.
Photographs by Nikola Gruev
- 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 pending completion of deletion request on Commons. I am not going to leave this discussion open for the entire time, because Commons discussions don't get closed as quickly as en.wiki discussions do, and so this would be hanging open for weeks. I am closing this without prejudice. If, after the Commons discussion is complete, people still feel the need to have this deleted, feel free to renominate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rozhenski-manastir-ngruev.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Pleven town hall.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Pleven - centre.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Rousse-street-scene.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Troyan-monastery-gruev-1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Tsarevets-gruev-1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Nat-theatre-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Ndk-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Tryavna-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Borovets-gruev-1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Borovets-gruev-2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:V-tarnovo-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Bachkovo-gruev-1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Bachkovo-gruev-2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Albena-gruev.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Vratsa-street-scene-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:MadanBG-Gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:ElenaBG-Gruev-architecture.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Smolyan-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Melnik-wine-cellar-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Varosha-blagoevgrad-gruev.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Blagoevgrad-centre-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Glozhene-entrance-gruev1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Glozhene-gruev2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Aladzha-gruev-room.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Shipka-memorial-tower.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Sofia-metro-station-griev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Zlatograd-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Hemus-motorway-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Borisovagradina-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Borisova-gruev-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:BAS-gruev.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Balchik-palace-gruev.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Dryanovo-monastery-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Kozhuh-Ngruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Rupite-church-Ngruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Bansko-mehani-ngruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Tsarska-bistritsa-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Koprivshtitsa-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:CBS-ngruev-back.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Etropole-monastery-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Smolyan-houses-gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Sofia airport.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Centre of Blagoevgrad Gruev.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The permission given is extremely vague. There are various problems:
- The stipulation that "only pictures [included] in Wikipedia articles fall under the GFDL" cannot work. If an image is included in a Wikipedia article under the GFDL and then is subsequently removed it doesn't just suddenly fall back to its original license. The GFDL is irrevocable, and this permission notice seems to ignore that;
- As far as I know (disclaimer: IANAL), this "permission upon use" is not acceptable in US law;
- Stipulations like "only one or two pictures maximum [per article]" don't make sense in terms of US copyright law. A picture either is licensed under a certain license or it isn't.
- If a certain portion of images are licensed under the GFDL only, a list of the images that are should be provided by Nikola Gruev. — cdwn 21:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a very long discussion at Commons:Template:NGruev, partially in Bulgarian. It may be better to handle this by nominating the template for deletion. Also, unless you speak Bulgarian, I think that you should also try to find someone who can read the Bulgarian text, in case it is relevant. However, I agree that the English statement is dubious. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending a deletion discussion for the template. Either all of these images are good, or all are bad; there's no point in getting rid of images based on licensing reasons when we haven't deprecated their license template. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. Surely a template is not the sole arbiter of copyright? — cdwn 19:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a template is found to be faulty, then all images under the template should be deleted, unless some are found to be free for some other reason. At least on Commons, this is often handled by nominating the template for deletion. Besides, if the files should be deleted, then the template should also be deleted so that people won't make the mistake of using the template for any new files. I'd say take the template to WP:TFD and Commons:COM:DEL and maybe keep this discussion running until the TFD discussion has ended. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. Surely a template is not the sole arbiter of copyright? — cdwn 19:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Commons template nominated for deletion, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev. I suggest that we leave this open until we have a decision from the Commons discussion; we should probably mirror the decision here. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev. If they are used in articles on en.wiki, please move them to Commons before deleting them. --5ko (talk) 08:03, 24 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.