Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 24
[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 discussion was: Delete INeverCry 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly a web screenshot, the photo of the girl can be found in multiple sources online eg [1]. January (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the tag given is certainly false, and there's no reason to think the photo is free. – Quadell (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2013 (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. Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- File:Florence 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I was about to transfer this to Commons when I noticed that the file doesn't have any metadata. This is uncommon if not suspicious for allegedly original photos. Even a scanner would likely have left a digital footprint. Although the uploader Rhvanwinkle wrote that they created this work all by themselves, that statement might just be true for the transfer to Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google Image search and TinEye search only find this photo reproduced in Wikipedia mirrors. The lack of metadata is odd, but I see no good reason to doubt the uploader's claim that he created the photo himself. – Quadell (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find anything at Google and TinEye either. Perhaps the image was cropped from the original and so the exif data got lost. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why is this suspicious? If it were me, I'd strip all metadata from any photo I'd publicly publish. That's just good practice, and a recommended practice by several authorities. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with above IP, stripping metadata is not uncommon advice, and I saw a law enforcement memo in the last week or so discussing both sides of the idea. Without a more damning issue than lack of metadata, I can't justify a lack of trust in this uploader. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Lack of metadata alone doesnt prove anything. - Nbound (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2013 (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: Delete INeverCry 17:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This a 1955 photograph of a house. The house is still standing, so if the image is non-free then it is replaceable and we can't use it. The photo came from Florida Memory, a division of the Florida Department of State, though they did not create the photo. Their content disclaimer is here. It says, among other things, "Some of the images may be protected by copyright. Persons accessing these images assume full responsibility for their use". The uploader contacted the site, and was told "You may use any of the images posted on the Florida Memory Project website. The State Archives of Florida is not aware of any copyright issues with any of the images." Does this mean that the photo is not copyrighted? Or does this mean that the state of Florida doesn't know whether it's copyrighted or not, and we have to assume it's non-free? (Note that the uploader tagged it as cc-by, which is certainly not correct.) – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2013 (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: Delete INeverCry 17:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the back view of the same house, from the same collection, but the uploader tagged is as fair use. If it's non-free, then it's replaceable and we can't use it. It think whatever we decide about the previous photo should apply here as well. – Quadell (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2013 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 24 May 2013 (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.