Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 3
[edit]
- 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Latig.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 05:12, 3 April 2013 (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. Dianna (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lawn jockey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photo is a derivative work, contains no information on the license of the depicted 3D artwork. Unclear if the OTRS ticket is for the photo or the sculpture or both. Kelly hi! 05:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as this has an OTRS ticket, have you tried corresponding with the person that holds the rights to clarify if it is the photo or the sculpture? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The watermark means that the photo comes from Ebay, right? I typically ask at WP:OTRS/N before nominating files with OTRS tickets for deletion for copyright reasons. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to [1], these lawn jockeys are something that the ebay seller personally makes. In other words, the guy what made the statue = the guy who took the photo. If OTRS has permission from him, then we're golden. --B (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The words "I PERSONALLY MAKE THESE AND ALL OUR CONCRETE STATUES" seems to imply that the photographer and the sculptor are the same guy, and in that case it should be fine, assuming, of course, that this photo was taken by the same Ebay user. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to [1], these lawn jockeys are something that the ebay seller personally makes. In other words, the guy what made the statue = the guy who took the photo. If OTRS has permission from him, then we're golden. --B (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2013 (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 F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bingbong Crisologo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Do official photos in the Philippines lack copyright? Eeekster (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons treats them as free (Commons:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov) whereas Wikipedia treats them as non-free (Template:Non-free Philippines government). Both templates have been kept when nominated for deletion. If it remains on Wikipedia, then it is "non-free", but if it is moved to Commons, it suddenly becomes "free". --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2013 (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. Dianna (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:LPuhnPhoto.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- No evidence author is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 08:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have something specific here? The uploader said in text (not just choosing from a template) "I am the author and source and I hold the copyright. I release it to the public domain. Tdl2 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)". On a different photo of the same person, the uploader said, "I am the author. I know this because I took the picture myself. I am the copyright holder. Tdl2 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)". Unless you have found evidence that this is false, we normally take people at their word. --B (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what kind of evidence Kelly might have, but the image is obviously cropped, as you can see from this blog post. However, the blog post is later and has a lower resolution than the copy on Wikipedia, so the blog is not the original source. Maybe both images come from a third unidentified source. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader originally uploaded an uncropped photo at File:LauriePuhn.JPG. It was deleted that same day as a duplicate, so it's doubtful that anyone copied it from here in that short period of time. I have restored it temporarily for purposes of this discussion. The uploader's only contributions are related to Laurie Puhn. I don't see any reason not to take them at their word - they could have simply provided the same photo to this other website three years later. When all we have to go on is a template where a person could have picked something with no idea what it means, okay, fine, err on the side of caution, but this person explicitly claimed to be the photographer and copyright holder - in words, not with a template - and barring some reason to doubt that word, we usually assume good faith. --B (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That shouldn't have been deleted as F1 since the image isn't identical. Why is the image so small? Cameras don't produce photos of that size, and there is no EXIF. It is very hard to determine if a 2006 upload is a copyvio since it might have been taken from a website which is no longer available. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it shouldn't have been deleted as F1 and the admin who deleted it has been desysopped for things like this (running an adminbot and blocking/deleting/whatever without manual review). While yes, you're obviously correct that the image was edited, we have a whole slew of old images that are tiny because back in the good old days, people uploaded web-resolution photos to Wikipedia as a matter of course. Also, a lot of times when we receive images from notable people, they contribute web-resolution images either because it doesn't occur to them that we would like the higher-resolution photo (they're just giving us their normal web-resolution version) or because they would rather be in control of the print-quality photo and make a conscious decision not to upload it. In any event, none of that calls into question the uploader's claim that he/she is the copyright holder. --B (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That shouldn't have been deleted as F1 since the image isn't identical. Why is the image so small? Cameras don't produce photos of that size, and there is no EXIF. It is very hard to determine if a 2006 upload is a copyvio since it might have been taken from a website which is no longer available. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader originally uploaded an uncropped photo at File:LauriePuhn.JPG. It was deleted that same day as a duplicate, so it's doubtful that anyone copied it from here in that short period of time. I have restored it temporarily for purposes of this discussion. The uploader's only contributions are related to Laurie Puhn. I don't see any reason not to take them at their word - they could have simply provided the same photo to this other website three years later. When all we have to go on is a template where a person could have picked something with no idea what it means, okay, fine, err on the side of caution, but this person explicitly claimed to be the photographer and copyright holder - in words, not with a template - and barring some reason to doubt that word, we usually assume good faith. --B (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what kind of evidence Kelly might have, but the image is obviously cropped, as you can see from this blog post. However, the blog post is later and has a lower resolution than the copy on Wikipedia, so the blog is not the original source. Maybe both images come from a third unidentified source. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have something specific here? The uploader said in text (not just choosing from a template) "I am the author and source and I hold the copyright. I release it to the public domain. Tdl2 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)". On a different photo of the same person, the uploader said, "I am the author. I know this because I took the picture myself. I am the copyright holder. Tdl2 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)". Unless you have found evidence that this is false, we normally take people at their word. --B (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2013 (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; executor of the estate is not the same thing as heir to the copyright to the painting. Dianna (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:NETMENDERS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Un-ambiguously not the uploaders own creation, derivative of art. Convert to fair-use? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as free. Well, no, clearly fair use is not valid ... HOWEVER ... scroll down and click on a few of the paintings in the gallery at the bottom of Mārtiņš Krūmiņš. At File:Town of Purvciems in Autumn.jpg, the uploader says, "A Painting by my Uncle, Martins Krumins" and "I am the owner of the negative and Executor of Martins Krumins Estate." If there's no basis for questioning that claim, then we can accept this license as valid. --B (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Old Caplin Cove.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Not PD-Self according to the image captioning where it's in use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The image caption in the article Caplin Cove says: "Old Image of Caplin Cove, Source: http://www.caplincove.ca/". --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sheikh Mujib.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This file is photoshopped, though the uploader appears to claim it to be their own work. I doubt that it is a free file. It is also appalling quality. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a photo of a television, maybe? --B (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:S M Sultan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This file is unlikely to be a free file and is unlikely to be made by the uploader as claimed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mahmudur Rahman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This photoshopped file is unlikely to have been created by and the copyright of the uploader. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2013 (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.