Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 6
July 6
[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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a poor copy of this internet image which pre-dates the upload of the one on wikipedia. Given the quality, dates and subject matter I think that this image was taken from a website and is not self-made Peripitus (Talk) 00:04, 6 July 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.
- 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 Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly lower resolution than it originally was, looks like it has been taken from elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 6 July 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.
- 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 Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially uploaded by me. The model in the image (Kia Abdullah) had reclaimed copyright and therefore the image is no longer available for the public domain. Allegra.ashe (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. If you took the picture, the copyright belongs to you- Abdullah has no right to "reclaim copyright". J Milburn (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I took the pictures, I signed over copyright to her with the provision that I too could use the pictures if I wanted. We also had a clause that if she wanted to stop me from using/distributing her images, she could. She has asked me to stop distributing this image so I no longer have right to use it. Allegra.ashe (talk) 20:37, 6 July 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 consensus & IMHO the current template (c)s are appropriate. Skier Dude (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is far more stylised than a simple text logo. I do not think this image could be considered public domain. J Milburn (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't think it passes the threshold for originality. It is one line of simple text overlaying a large, simply designed letter M. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Going with IronGargoyle on this one. It isn't just stylized text that can be PD, but also simple geometric shapes. This logo consists only of a letter "M", a rectangle, and the text "MICHIGAN"; as such, this logo only consists of typefaces, individual words...and simple geometric shapes and are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, thus is considered to be in the public domain. See WP:PD#Fonts or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information. — BQZip01 — talk 05:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per J Milburn. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 1 September 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously professionally created, embedded caption and all, no proof that uploader is the copyright holder. The uploader has uploaded several suspicious images. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:53, 6 July 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.
- 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: Deleted as a non-free file with convincing non-free use rationale. The image have no source, so no evidence that the image was ever under Crown Copyright, the assumption that press where now allowed seem unfounded. The Press Association have copyrighted photos of the event in their print store [1][2] for example, so without a clear source we can't just assume that this particular image was created by a government employee. --Sherool (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is claimed for King Edward's Chair. Since the photo is supposed to illustrate the chair, the fact that there are two PD images of said chair invalidate the claim of fair use, which requires the image to be irreplaceable. The only article for which fair use could possibly apply would be Coronation of Elizabeth II (assuming there aren't any suitably licensed images of the coronation, of course), which is currently a redlink. Parsecboy (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this is an unfree image. Wouldn't this be an expired crown copyright per {{PD-BritishGov}}? IronGargoyle (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that you are right. Crown Copyright. Expired in 2003 as the Coronation took place on 2 June 1953. Sv1xv (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there evidence that it was taken by a government photographer? Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The coronation ceremony itself is considered sacred (it wasn't even photographed in 1937). I'm nearly certain they would not have allowed the British Press in to photograph it. This would only be the work of an official photographer. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll need a source stating that either the photo is definitively a work of the British government or that there were no press allowed in the ceremony to prove that it's PD. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think considering the location and the ceremony is more than sufficient. Beyond that is needless copyright paranoia. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just trying to be careful; I've taken articles through FAC that contained images from the LOC, the description pages of which stated no known restrictions on use, and those were challenged. If we can make easier the life of whomever eventually improves the articles this image will be used in, then we should. I can with almost guarantee that if an article went through FAC and contained this image with the license "it's PD because it was taken at Elizabeth's coronation and they didn't allow the press" without an actual source, it'll be challenged. Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think considering the location and the ceremony is more than sufficient. Beyond that is needless copyright paranoia. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll need a source stating that either the photo is definitively a work of the British government or that there were no press allowed in the ceremony to prove that it's PD. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The coronation ceremony itself is considered sacred (it wasn't even photographed in 1937). I'm nearly certain they would not have allowed the British Press in to photograph it. This would only be the work of an official photographer. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there evidence that it was taken by a government photographer? Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that you are right. Crown Copyright. Expired in 2003 as the Coronation took place on 2 June 1953. Sv1xv (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, It's not reasonable to automatically assume it would be a 'govt' copyright, IMO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:19, 12 July 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⚡ 16:17, 16 July 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.
- 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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a screenshot, uploader unlikely to hold the copyright. Polly (Parrot) 22:57, 6 July 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.
- 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See http://flagspot.net/flags/disclaim.html Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 6 July 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.
- 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.
Kept, obviously far too old to retain copyright. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.fanshop-online.de/fahnen-flaggen-infos/disclaim.html Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I seriously doubt that website holds any legitimate copyright claim on the image. The emblem is a symbol of the Knights of Malta who have been around since the 1500s. Here, for example is an early use of the image. The design is also quite simple, and I doubt it would be eligible for copyright had it not been made nearly 500 years ago. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:48, 12 August 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.
