Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 July 8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Said to be by the uploader, but metadata reads "Photo by JOSHUA SUDOCK, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER". —innotata 00:29, 8 July 2012 (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⚡ 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Warrenharvey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The source of file (WarrenHarvey.com) is dead. As, it's clearly visible that file was from subject's personal website, chances of public domain are very less. Models/actors don't release such images in PD. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:56, 8 July 2012 (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⚡ 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Byronbryankelly.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Exif data (and uploader's history) suggest this isn't the work of the uploader as claimed. Eeekster (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2012 (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⚡ 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Chrismastersdutchpro.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Exif data suggest this is not the work of the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2012 (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⚡ 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Shadvsjtg2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Not likely to be the work of the uploader as claimed. Eeekster (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2012 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Copied illegally directly from http://news.sky.com/story/953601/london-could-stage-formula-1-grand-prix to which the uploading user has freely admitted to doing. Falcadore (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2012 (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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kim Jong-un.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Possible Flickr license laundering, available on the Internet with higher resolution e.g Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a free image. I've seen this image uploaded and deleted here and on Commons countless times. It's source is from North Korean press, which does not enjoy the PD-gov status of government works. It's license laundering. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Speedy delete file. --Idh0854 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (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⚡ 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Has a 1974 copyright to United Artists. See also Commons deletion for same reason. We hope (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2012 (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⚡ 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File has 2 licenses-one for no copyright, one for not renewed. Copyright mark shown on the uncropped photo. There is no date shown on the photo. We hope (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gerald Mast, author of Film Study and the Copyright Law (2007), wrote that "the new 1989 copyright revisions only protected publicity works that complied with all earlier requirements in addition to filing a copyright registration within 5 years of first publication. . . . The new copyright act similarly excludes the production still from automatic copyright but gives the film's copyright owner a five-year period in which to copyright the stills." No date on still implies that a boilerplate "c" was added to everything without concern for actual filing and paying for registration, which of course would undermine the purpose publicity stills. See: film still. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One or both of the licenses is incorrect because the date isn't known. It may date after 1977 but with no date, that's not able to be determined.We hope (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the problem is the limited choice of WP ready-made templates don't fit all circumstances. The first states, "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States before 1964, and its copyright was not renewed." But a work could have been "published" and never registered, therefore no renewal would be available. It's clearly a 1960s image, when compared to others, and would have had to be registered and renewed I assume. And such images are "traditionally not copyrighted." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One or both of the licenses is incorrect because the date isn't known. It may date after 1977 but with no date, that's not able to be determined.We hope (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are suggesting that the copyright notice on the photo is to be ignored in favor of "film still" information? You have one license that says this photo was published without a copyright notice--what's that on the bottom of the photo? We hope (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a copyright symbol without a required date. BTW, the "film still information" is all based on well-established and cited law, so "yes," I'm in favor to going by the law.
which is probably what you meant.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]- What I posted is exactly what I meant. We hope (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Delete The uploader obviously doesn't know where the photo comes from and so is unable to provide sufficient information for the public domain claim. There might be something useful on the back of the photo, but the back side is unavailable. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2012 (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.