Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2

File:Soetjipto Soentoro.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soetjipto Soentoro.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Looks like a photograph, web-resolution. Doesn't look like a free drawing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 2 February 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.

File:Mehmed VI.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mehmed VI.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Portrait painting of an early 20th century ruler, claimed PD, but without authorship and date information. Painting might be a lot more recent . Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 2 February 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.

File:Patchway Town Council logo.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: Keep, with the adition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patchway Town Council logo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Logo above threshold of originality in origin jurisdiction. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 2 February 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.

File:Insidelouvrepyramid2.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: Keep - per Stefan. Normally I wouldn't close a discussion for an issue where I've had some say in creating the policy, but it's been over two months and no one else is doing it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Insidelouvrepyramid2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No FoP in France, and the Lourve pyramid is 'recent', Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia uses USA law, not French law. Photos of buildings are allowed under USA law. See {{FoP-USonly}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:52, 5 February 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.

File:ICPlogo.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly a logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:00, 2 February 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.

File:ImreAmos.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: Keep, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I fail to see how a 1935 image can be PD-100 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not, but why you didn't think to replace it with fair use beats me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:22, 2 February 2013 (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 ⚡ 12:06, 2 February 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.

File:20070307 Buffalo Common Council Districts.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:20070307 Buffalo Common Council Districts.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is a 2D Map, and I wasn't aware Buffalo released under a 'free' license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 2 February 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.

File:Royal-Trinity Bradby Shield.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal-Trinity Bradby Shield.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

There are two main concerns which I have with this image, these being i) The upload is of low resloution, which suggests it is not the work of the uploader and ii) it is potentially a derivative work of copyrighted material, although I accept it is difficult to see the details. CT Cooper · talk 16:25, 2 February 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.

File:College tie of Royal College Colombo.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:College tie of Royal College Colombo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Provision by the uploader that "This image should not be used in ant[sic] form or manner that may reflect badly on Royal College Colombo." is incredibly vague and conflicts with the license on allowing commercial use, with attribution, for any purpose, and arguably acts as a chilling effect against any re-use at all. CC-BY-3.0 license states that it does not affect moral rights, although these differ from this provision. CT Cooper · talk 16:39, 2 February 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.

File:FlSilverGlenSprings.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 as F8 by Addshore (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file (and a whole lot more I will list below as well. Claim is {{PD-FLGov}}. But the images come from http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/FGS/WEB/springs/bulletin_66.pdf - that gives no indication of release - I checked the parent site - http:/www.dep.state.fl.us, that has a copyright link to http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/copyright.html - which states the images can only be used as "Non-commercial". Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are hundreds (if not thousands) of images on Wikipedia taken from State of Florida websites that use the PD-author template for licensing. Is this the first time you've examined a file that uses this template? Mgrē@sŏn 02:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were looked at because they were new. The PD-author does not give an indication of where permission may be found. Had the uploader been consistent and used {{PD-FLGov}} throughout, then I would not have spent time downloading that large PDF and trying to find a copyright statement. When I did find one, eventually, it said non-commercial. Therefore the best system is to start a discussion on if they are truly PD or non-commercial. For all I know, the state of Florida might have changed it's policies. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the files also have {{PD-FLGov}} that says: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a State of Florida "public record made or ... [read the template for full text]". If the files do not live up to the requirements in the template they should be deleted. If the only problem is that they use "PD-author" then the solution is to change the template. --MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, if the statement on the web site that they are non-commercial use only can be ignored, then we should change the template. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are lots of websites where the US government or the FL government claim copyright although they aren't entitled to do so. For example, the Flickr stream belonging to the Department of Defense contains lots of files marked with CC-BY-NC-ND, but the files are obviously {{PD-USGov-DOD}}. A copyright claim is not necessarily valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one would assume the government would know what they are doing ;-) Looks like yours is as bad as ours... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others in the same issue (not tagged at this time)

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:43, 2 February 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.