Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < November 7 | November 9 > |
|---|
November 8
[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also present at http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepanzer/su/t-34/t-34-85/t-34_85_jaguar.htm - German copyright generally extends 70 years pma and this was taken in 1945. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2010 (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 - de minimis, with old versions deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mainichi issho psp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This image has a screenshot of a non-free game Mainichi Issho, but the uploader claims to have released his image into the public domain. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just resolved this by blurring the screen area so the game is no longer recognisable. Chimpanzee+ Us | Ta | Co 09:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the blurring would cause this image to cease to be a derivative work, and thus still non-free. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blurriness in an image surely isn't copyrightable, except by the image's photographer; there's no real way to see that this is derived from the original image, and thus any resemblances are de minimis. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the blurring would cause this image to cease to be a derivative work, and thus still non-free. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:05, 8 November 2010 (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 G5 by Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a TV show and the author claims to release it for free. Obviously the author is not a blog and is the production house. Mspraveen (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2010 (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: moved to commons, where their rules about FoP are different and more lax. Because en.wp strictly enforces the rule that something has to be free in the United States, we would have to delete it here, but commons seems to be ignoring the rule in practice. Please feel free to nominate for deletion there for FoP reasons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2D artwork - so FoP might not apply, Still usable as fair-use Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, see Commons:Template:FoP-Australia — photographs of artwork permanently in public places in Australia don't infringe on the copyright of the artwork. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Australian laws allow for 2D works? The UK equivalent doesn't and I would envisage Australian laws following from the British.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2010 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:MPIPLBrandIcons.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This looks like a photo of an advert, More information needed to support PD claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2010 (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: found in the National Archives of Australia (accession no. M2127); author confirmed as Annabelle Rankin. Tagged accordingly. DrKiernan (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:HMQ and R Menzies.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader User:Stravin is blocked for sockpuppetry, and has uploaded an image with false copyright in the past according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stravin/Archive#Report date January 3 2010, 05:56 (UTC). This particular image looks very similar to these others from February 1963: 1 (image)(info)2 (image)(info). It was originally uploaded as a copyrighted image[1]. There could have been inadvertent confusion of the 1963 photographs with photographs from the 1954 Australian visit [2] (which are not available online). I am unable to find it in the NLA catalog and the artist "Dame Anne Rankin" does not appear to exist, although this could mean Annabelle Rankin. DrKiernan (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](/w/index.php?title=File:HMQ_and_R_Menzies.jpg&oldid=319982923){kind=link}
- 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 MilborneOne (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BrazierxPresO.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Authour claimed as Getty Images ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange it was copy and pasted from commons, presume deleted from commons as a copyvio, as it is still a copyvio I have deleted the image. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2010 (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:Nick Winton MBA 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Possibly not the work of the uploader who has uploaded other images taken by others. Smaller version appears on the subjects website http://www.winton.nildram.co.uk/Nick/ MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nick Winton MBA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Possibly not the work of the uploader who has uploaded other images taken by others. Smaller version appears on the subjects website http://www.winton.nildram.co.uk/Nick/ MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
