Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 5

< June 4	June 6 >

June 5

File:BUL ARRV 14-wiki.gif

I'm not sure if they uploader really created this... they may have added the text and related content (in fact, that's probable), but the underlying map is likely copyrighted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buleleng info wiki.jpg

I'm not sure if they uploader really created this... the map looks pretty official and detailed. And the notice at the bottom of the image also makes me a bit suspicious. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonic Erotica Article Psycho-Sensuals Unite.jpg

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 Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scan of a newspaper article; unlikely uploader owns copyright (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News paper article is from 1996 (thirteen years ago). Newspaper no longer exists and neither does the band. Also article has been publically published. Authorization and copyright is irrelevent and scan is authentic. Please provide evidence to the contrary.--Mirror Man (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authorization and copyright are entirely relevant. Whether the content has been publicly published or not, on the other hand, isn't. If we don't have authorization, we can't use the image. On Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the uploader to show that we can use an image, not the other way around. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 5 June 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:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg

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.

Out of scope. This image is already marked as non-free; Possibly unfree files is to be used for images that are marked as free but there is a doubt as to whether they are free or not. Please list at WP:NFR or WP:FFD. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The current prose in the article, "In 2006 the United States Postal Service made a stamp in commemoration of the aspen, calling it one of the forty Wonders of America" is quite sufficient to inform the reader of its existence and they will not fail to understand the stamp was issued. The fair use rationale fails because WP:NFCC#8 states; Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Also stamps may not be used to illustrate the subject per WP:NFC#Images #3. ww2censor (talk) 13:40, 5 June 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:SteinbeckStamp.JPG

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.

Out of scope. This image is already marked as non-free; Possibly unfree files is to be used for images that are marked as free but there is a doubt as to whether they are free or not. Please list at WP:NFR or WP:FFD. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (No rebuttal to my talk page discussion). The current prose in the article, is quite sufficient to inform the reader of its existence and they will not fail to understand the stamp was issued. The fair use rationale fails because WP:NFCC#8 states; Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Also stamps may not be used to illustrate the subject per WP:NFC#Images #3. ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 5 June 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:Yellowrose02.jpg

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.

Out of scope. This image is already marked as non-free; Possibly unfree files is to be used for images that are marked as free but there is a doubt as to whether they are free or not. Please list at WP:NFR or WP:FFD. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A freely licenced image already exists in the article Gyo Fujikawa so it fails WP:NFCC#3 for minimal use of non-free images and the current prose is quite sufficient to inform the reader of its existence and they will not fail to understand this stamp was issued. The fair use rationale fails because WP:NFCC#8 states; Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Also stamps may not be used to illustrate the subject per WP:NFC#Images #3. ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 5 June 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:Eisenach.jpg

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: Not deleted. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged {{cc-by-3.0}}, but the source page [1] says at the bottom, "2006 © Международный Объединенный Биографический Центр", which apparently means "© 2006 International Biographical Center" (see [2]). The image description page says, "Copyright permitted, provided a link is provided to the source,"⁽¹⁾ but I do not see an indication of this on the source page (English translation). The image description page also says, "Photograph taken before 1950"; I don't see any evidence for this claim on the source page either, and I'm not entirely sure what it would mean (in terms of copyright) if it were true. —Bkell (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source page for ⁽¹⁾ mentioned above is here.
Photo taken before 1950 should have said 1952, not 1950 - so I've changed it. It was judged on dated fashion and appearance alone. The significance of this date is that at the time of uploading I had been given to understand that during the Cold War the US legal dept. considered Soviet copyright fair game, and they said that Soviet photos taken before 1953 (1951 for military) were copyright-free. Hope that helps --Storye book (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please also see User talk:Bkell#File:Bse sci lib com.jpg, File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg, File:Eisenach.jpg for some related information about this image and others like it. —Bkell (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Licence tag has been corrected. It is now {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}}. The "others like it" (see Bkell above) have now been corrected, or are in the process of correction. Please kindly hold off on these others for a few days as it's a long job. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storye book has provided a link ([3], English translation) that seems to indicate that File:Eisenach.jpg can be used freely with a link to the source ("При использовании любых материалов, опубликованных на нашем сайте, ссылка обязательна!", translated as "If you use any materials published on our website, a link is required!"). So this image seems to be OK. I would still like to understand the situation for old Soviet photographs though, for future reference. Is there a specific date before which Soviet photographs can be considered to be in the public domain? —Bkell (talk) 23:25, 8 June 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:VCAndersFrederikEmilVictorSchauLassen.jpg

Is the photo old enough to be PD? User:Nillerdk (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked the uploader in an e-mail if he has additional informations. The answer: No idea, I'm afraid. Only helped the owner of the VC site to migrate it to Wikipedia several years ago. User:Nillerdk (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estonians-in-ethnic-clothing.jpg

Given license is incorrect -- the image does not fall into any of the categories that would place it into the public domain. Image is said to originate from www.europeade.ee, which does not release its images under suitable license. Quibik (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Houseofkrazees1.JPG

I do not believe that the uploader owns the copyright to this image. It appears to be a promotional photo, or a scan from an album cover. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]