Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

February 8

File:Laura Branigan live in Massachusetts.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laura Branigan live in Massachusetts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Per ticket:2015102910026961, unfortunately the putative photographer is not sure they were the photographer. Storkk (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean they are unsure if they are the photographer? –Dell9300 (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2016 (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.

File:Drake As Miley Cyrus.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drake As Miley Cyrus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Claimed to be released under a free license, the license claim links back to a web site which provides no indication of a free license release, and in any case, this is a screen shot of a video, and the web site is not the copyright holder so it couldn't possibly be the source for a free license. Not used, so conversion to fair use is not an option. Whpq (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2016 (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.

File:Arluno-Stemma.gif

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arluno-Stemma.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Images from www.araldicacivica.it. Stefan2 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would such a coat of arms be eligible as {{Non-free logo}}? Not sure how CoAs are typically handled if non-free.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. They can be replaced by freely licensed drawings based on the same blazon, see c:COM:COA. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2016 (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.

File:Apecchio-Stemma.gif

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apecchio-Stemma.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Images from www.araldicacivica.it. Stefan2 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would such a coat of arms be eligible as {{Non-free logo}}? Not sure how CoAs are typically handled if non-free.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. They can be replaced by freely licensed drawings based on the same blazon, see c:COM:COA. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2016 (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.

File:Arconate-Stemma.gif

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arconate-Stemma.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Images from www.araldicacivica.it. Stefan2 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would such a coat of arms be eligible as {{Non-free logo}}? Not sure how CoAs are typically handled if non-free.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. They can be replaced by freely licensed drawings based on the same blazon, see c:COM:COA. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2016 (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.

File:RSCISR Night.jpeg

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; deleted as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:RSCISR Night.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Uploader claims to hold the copyright but the same photo appears in the Tribune India with a photo credit to Vinod Pundir. No evidence provided that the uploader is that person. Whpq (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: Since the uploader is claiming that they are the copyright holder and you have found it published somewhere, it's copyright infringement and I have tagged it as so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2016 (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.

File:Master of Saint Francis -- National Gallery crucifix.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Master of Saint Francis -- National Gallery crucifix.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Per the permission source, the Creative Commons license this file has is CC-BY-NC-ND. This license is not compatible with the English Wikipedia. Also, the age of the item would not seem to have an effect on this file's copyright since the fact that there is white space bordering the item show that it is a derivative work, so thus its copyright holder would be whoever created the work. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I appear to have labelled the image incorrectly. Steel1943, the CC-BY-NC-ND link says "You are free to share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format", how is that incompatible? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hillbillyholiday: In the license, "NC" means "non-commercial". This is the part of the license that is not allowed on Wikipedia. I cannot find a better reference than this one to explain it here: Wikipedia:Flickr. (I know that you didn't upload this from Flickr, but the page explains what CC licenses are compatible and what are not quite well.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hillbillyholiday: The same issue applies to the "ND" in the license, which means "no derivative". This is also not allowed. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I think I understand now. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:06, 8 February 2016 (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.

File:Pambos Christodoulou Manager of AEL FC.jpg

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; deleted as F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pambos Christodoulou Manager of AEL FC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Seems like a photo taken by the press. There is no convincing proof that the uploader is he copyright holder of this image. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steel1943 I'm working for press as a photographer. So please, show some respect or I'll delete my picture by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pe6pe (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pe6pe: Right (you work for the press), which means this photograph has most likely been published elsewhere. Where else has this photo been published? Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pe6pe: As shown below, this photo has been published elsewhere. What this means is that since it there is proof that it has been published elsewhere, for the file to remain on Wikipedia, Wikipedia has to verify that you have permission to release this file. I am going to update the tags on the file to reflect this, and then I will be re-tagging the file in a way. When I tag the file, I will also provide to you a notice on your talk page with instructions about how to get in contact with the OTRS team to verify that you can release the file with a free license. (I'm doing it this way because otherwise, I could make a valid claim that this photograph has been uploaded as a copyright infringement: I want to give you a chance to verify that you are the copyright holder and/or have permission to release the photo with a free license.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See http://www.24sports.com.cy/mobile.php?modid=2&artid=141822 for an example of the image being published on a sports news site. If the update is indeed a press photographer, we would need positive proof he holds the copyright. --Whpq (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: You found what I was trying to find for about 10 minutes. Props to you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2016 (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.

Simcoe County road signs

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. The original sign is unlikely freely licensed, and a derivative work still infringes on the rights of the copyright owner. — ξ ^xplicit 05:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simcoe Road 3 sign.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Simcoe Road 89 sign.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

The logo in these images can be found at http://www.simcoe.ca/PublishingImages/icons/cos-logo.png. This logo is hosted on the county's official site. Using this logo in such a way could be considered a derivative work. Also, precedence with other similar signs in Canada with having freely-made versions means that these files would fail WP:NFCC#1 if deemed non-free. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Unfree logo: The sign I made is a homemade "knockoff", not a copy-and paste of the logo, which you can see by looking at the font and details. Also, I uploaded other signs of the same type back in November which went unnoticed. Transportfan Transportfan (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Transportfan: "a homemade "knockoff" " is a derivative work. The original image's copyright seems to be owned by that county's government, meaning they essentially also hold the copyright to the image you created. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do I have to do to try to get the upload legal to upload?Transportfan (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Transportfan: An example of a file that came up recently that bus permissible is File:Manitoba secondary 542.svg. At some point in the past, there was a discussion for a similar file that was not free, which ended up being replaced with this file. The other file had a copyrighted image of a drawn buffalo silhouette that was supposedly owned by some part of the Manitoba government. I would say in your file's case, if you remove the image of the ship and probably the horizontal flags above and below the text "County of Simcoe", you would then only be extracting the text of the logo: text by itself is not eligible for copyright. At that point, provided that he rest of the sign is your original work (or a derivative of an image not eligible for copyright, which the rest of the sign seems to be), these signs should be okay to be released under a free license due to not being eligible for a copyright claim from someone else. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Transportfan: I just saw the new version of one of the files. I'll be straight to the point to restate my information in a nutshell: The ship/mountain and the flags should be completely removed. The text "County of Simcoe" can stay. Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even upload this abstracted version? What if I upload with a Fair Use license? Transportfan (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Transportfan: If you did that, it would have to meet all of the non-free content criteria. With the example I have provided above for the set of road signs in Manitoba, I could claim that this sign you uploaded, in its current state, fails the criterion #1 since I believe it could be replaceable with a free version. In fact, during the course of this discussion, I have even provided an idea about how to create a free version. Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to the county which owns the logo. If you're going to delete it, could you wait until I get a response about the copyright status? Transportfan70 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2016 (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.

File:View of Apron at TLV.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of Apron at TLV.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The terms and conditions in the source don't look like they allow straight copying of images. (history · last edit · rewrite) from . --geagea^Talk 23:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not able to find any indication that this image is released under the claimed free license. The terms and conditions from the source site are clearly the opposite of the free license claimed. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2016 (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.