Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2[edit]

File:Lil wayne official rebirth cover.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lil wayne official rebirth cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Licensed in the public domain, but it's merely a derivative work of a copyrighted image. No indication that the uploader owns the copyright to the original image. — ξxplicit 05:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a derivative. No way this is PD. GrooveDog FOREVER 03:07, 15 November 2009 (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:Charlie Ward Florida State 1993.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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⚡ 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charlie Ward Florida State 1993.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • The image is claimed as the user's own. However, it seems unlikely to me that the average Joe Wikipedian would have had access to this scene, which appears to have taken place in Charlie Ward's dorm. I'd like to verify that we can actually use this. Zagalejo^^^ 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the edges of the image, it would appear to be scanned out of a book. -- Whpq (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2009 (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:FDR-LBJ.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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, image is free- Peripitus (Talk) 09:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FDR-LBJ.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Index/picindex5.html Claims they can't be used commerically Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the URL in archive.org's Way Back Machine for Feb '04. It clearly states that "all photos are copyright free and in the public domain." Kingturtle (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. Is Wikipedia considered a commercial enterprise? Kingturtle (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The potential problem is not that Wikipedia is commercial, but that our licensing allows for reuse by commercial organizations. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks for clarifying. Still, in 2004, when I retrieved the image, the site said "all photos are copyright free and in the public domain." Kingturtle (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I agree with you. Once an image is released, there are no takebacks. Additionally, note that the original source at marist.edu is distinct from the newer file location at sandiego.edu. My guess would be that the new server is just reusing the old images and relicensing to protect themselves. The original image would still fall under its original licensing, and it should be kept. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:01, 2 November 2009 (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:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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. File is now licensed under fair use. — ξxplicit 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Image page claims it is "free use", and yet purported permission only allows use in limited circumstances, i.e. on Wikipedia only, and not specifically released under an acceptable free-use license. More at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/GA4 about that. At the same time, it is being claimed as a "fair use", while the rationale states it is also "free use". This is inappropriate, and the image should be deleted, unless this can be rectified, ideally by moving the image to Wikimedia Commons and confirming its status with its copyright holder via WP:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated on the Flying spaghetti monster talk page, the website of the creator[1] states that he painted it himself, and offers this image for download and states that "is pretty much free to use for press and such as far as I'm concerned", which should cover Wikipedia. Furthermore, we have an email from the creator stating that Wikipedia is free to use his image without restrictions. Lastly, even if those evidences are not accepted, the image is still justified under fair use provisions, as it is an important irreplaceable notable image. I see no reason to refuse to use an image that the author clearly wants us to use. The suggestion to delete unless it is incontrovertibly free to use for everyone everywhere at all times (which is what is required for files on commons) is ridiculous. LK (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niklas Jansson, the artist of the painting, responded to my e-mail, which you can see here. I'm not sure what else to say... Mnation2 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The image page will have to be cleaned up so that it is either simply fair use, and does not make purported references to being mistakenly free use when it is not free use - or moved to Wikimedia Commons and confirmed under a free use license via WP:OTRS. It can't be both. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be moved to commons if it is free, that's just the preference of the commons people. But you are right that it should be treated as fair use. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem seems to be that the author has made a common error in confusing "free as in beer" with "free as in speech". Permission for wikipedia to use it anywhere doesn't make the image free content. Free means released for anyone, anywhere to use the image for any purpose. Including for profit or to parody. This is a deliberately high bar set for content in order to protect downstream use. If the author uses CC-BY-NC, that is not ok. If he releases it as CC-BY-SA or CC-By, then it may be considered free content for our purposes and we can host and use it in an unrestricted fashion (i.e. on userpages). Protonk (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears from Jansson's email to Mnation2 that Jansson intends to release it on terms similar to CC-BY-NC, free non-commercial use. I understand that commons doesn't allow files using that license, but en.wikipedia should be fine with it, right? If not, we can just claim fair-use, and post up Jansson's emails on the file page as additional verification. I'm not really up on how to do the license template thingies. Can someone else fix the templates, and then close this discussion? thanks LK (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are 'fine' with it, but we need to treat it as non-free. I know this sounds dumb, but the basic idea is that we restrict non-free files so that downstream use doesn't misappropriate them (e.g. someone publishing the article on FSM and selling it would be commercial use, and we would want the image page to insure that didn't happen). I'll try and fix the templates to make the appropriate changes. Protonk (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, looking at the page it seems like the right information is on there, noting the source, the license status and the rationale. I recommend this discussion be closed. Protonk (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the Pastafarianism article itself, the author released the image for pretty much any purpose, so I don't see a problem. That, and I doubt seriously that the creator intends on enforcing copyright, as this was a tongue in cheek creation parodying, among other things, seriousness. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 08:16, 8 November 2009 (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:Amazon-River-Dolphin.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Infrogmation (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amazon-River-Dolphin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • I do not belive the uploader is the author of this image. TinEye finds multiple examples of this image online (example dated Aug 2007). Uploader has uploaded a number of images with poor sourcing and suggesting a poor understanding of copyright and attribution to author. Infrogmation (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. I am sorry I am sort of new with using pictures and I didn't understand the licensing. Anyways I have sources of where I got it from and who the author is and used a new license which I hope is alright. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the source you got it from. That clears up one issue, but not everything, sorry. It is not clear that the person who uploaded it to photobucket.com is the originator and copyright holder of the image, and I saw no evidence that the image is licensed under FAL at the linked source. If I missed this licensing info, could you please point it out? Otherwise, please explain how the this free license was granted. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am not sure of who the originator is because as you said you have found multiple examples and to be honest I am not sure of what license to use. Will you please shine the light on the situation and tell me what license I should be using on something like this. I am kind of getting confused when it comes to those kind of things and I want to know more about it. Thank you! Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know who created an image and don't know what license it is under, it is not appropriate to upload here. If you don't have information showing that the copyright holder has released the image under a specific free license or that the image is in the public domain, assume it is protected by copyright. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for an overview of licenses acceptable for use in Wikipedia. Where did the FAL license you tagged this image with come from? If you were just making a wild guess, don't do that. Or am I misunderstanding something? Infrogmation (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's obviously not the right license obviously. I am sorry. How about using this template: Template:Non-free unsure on this image. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Incorrect license by confused new user. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (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:Logofinal print.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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. I will remove the improper {{Information}} template, which will correct the issue. — ξxplicit 00:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logofinal print.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • User states "FCVRE created this work entirely by itself" but then selected a license which indicates it's his/her own work. Contradictory, and probably non-free. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:41, 2 November 2009 (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:Repton Front Wiki.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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⚡ 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Repton Front Wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Assertion of release but without documenation and contrary to this page which claims a copyright. Whpq (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One additional note, the image was used in article Repton School Dubai which itself is a copy of the school's web page with no assertion of release or OTRS ticket. -- Whpq (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2009 (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:FLEX publicity shot c1983.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 G7 by Secret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FLEX publicity shot c1983.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Image appears to be the cover of a CD or a magazine. No reason given to suggest that the uploader is the copyright holder. -FASTILYsock (TALK) 23:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a 'cd or magazine cover'. It is a card I had made up for publicity purposes in 1983, I own the copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeiva (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (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:David b pakman.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:David b pakman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

David B Pakman personally have the file to me, David Pakman, indicating that he, David B Pakman owns the copyright to this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpakman91 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 November 2009 (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/2009_November_2&oldid=1208424029"