Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 September 24



Image:Chris Daly.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is taken from a local government website. The uploader did provide a license by claiming the image has been released to public domain by the federal government. But the tag is used incorrectly since it only applies to the federal government, not state or local governments. Chris! my talk 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Daly Cop.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I nominate this image here feeling that it is unfree, not because of my POV. I am saying this because I am recently in a dispute regarding this photo. The license of this image is shown as being released in public domain. But I am not sure if that is correct. If it is in fact free, then my mistake. Chris! my talk 01:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The person who took this photo granted me permission to use it in this article and released it to the public domain. The reason Chris! nominated it for deletion is not because he has any evidence of it being unfree but because he is involved in a debate on Talk:Chris_Daly over whether the image is a fair representation of the politician in it. Chris! wants the photo removed from the article but he has so far been outvoted by other Wikipedia editors so he decided to try this tactic at getting it removed. BillyTFried 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I nominate the picture because I believe that it is unfree. The editor above never shows any evidences that he has the permission to put the image here. I have to say that I am not trying to win any debate by deleting it. If I really want to delete it, I can afd it. I don't even have to list it here.Chris! my talk 21:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Olivia 5.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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely copyvio from a photo shoot. Spellcast 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Chris_Beattie.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Source is given as "private collection" and uploader is releasing the rights, but it's unclear where he got the image. Looks like a screenshot to me, in wich case the uploader is not in a posission to release any rights to the image. Sherool (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:FortWilliamMap.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

looks like a scan, not an original map designed by the uploader Calliopejen1 08:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Chris_Beattie_2.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Source is given as "private collection" and uploader is releasing the rights, but it's unclear where he got the image. Looks like a screenshot to me, in wich case the uploader is not in a posission to release any rights to the image. Sherool (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:TsutomuHata.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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G12 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims that "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose" but according to the Japanese website it is sourced from "copyright.2005.IPDall rights reserved" — Evil Monkey - Hello 11:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this image is copyrighted and should be deleted immediately. I don't know what process to be follow though. Can someone help on this? Insomniacpuppy 16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Prague03_PhotoGNimeh_Nilton.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as beeing released under GFDL by it's creator, but the site it was taken from ( http://www.crossprocess.com/ ) is licensed under a non-commercial, no-derivatives CC license (ergo non-free), not GFDL. Sherool (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:001_Pushkar05_photoGNimeh_MonkeyMan_4257_15_1_640.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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as beeing released under GFDL by it's creator, but the site it was taken from ( http://www.crossprocess.com/ ) is licensed under a non-commercial, no-derivatives CC license (ergo non-free), not GFDL. Sherool (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Two.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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I4 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as released to PD by author (with no user specified), but it also says it was taken from http://www.waynemapp.co.nz where I can find no indication that this has been released from all copyrights. Sherool (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Candlebox_3.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as all rights released by creator (with no name specified), but the website it was taken from makes no mention of copyright status, and they most likely do not hold the copyright to the image anyway (seems to have been used in some event calendar or something). Sherool (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Beatthedevil.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: Keep; for now- F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no proof given in the summary that the copyright was not renewed. The Evil Spartan 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Internet Archive provides the film as a free download, claiming that it is public domain, which is also stated in Beat the Devil. The Wikipedia article references the IA, I am not familiar with the vetting process of the IA to ascertain whether their determination of PD is legitimate or not.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:YasuoFukuda.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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G12 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak Japanese, but I don't think this license (Google translation) is compatible with Wikipedia. — Mushroom (Talk) 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this image is copyrighted and should be deleted immediately. I don't know what process to be follow though. Can someone help on this? Insomniacpuppy 16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you read about "Concerning the all or part of contents of this home page, such as private use with respect to the Copyright Act is recognized or quotation it is possible to do quotation and reprinting (or reproducing) duplication, by stating clearly origin as the behavior which, with appropriate method. However, “no permission reprinting (or reproducing) is prohibited”, when and so on there is note, it is not this limit." ,huh???????????? Why did you deleted it? Hey you, DON'T TALK NONSENSE! --Dj nix 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would guess what that is saying really is that they only allow non-commerical use ("private use") and according to the copyright notice "it is not possible to alter with no permission", meaning you can't modify the image without permission. Both of these facts are incompatible with the Wikipedia licensing requirements of images. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:UnicursalHex.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploader claims copyright but has had other copyright issues.  But | seriously | folks   22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:RunicArmanenFutharkCirclecopyrightVictorOrdellLKasen.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Possibly" not copyright is does not make it public domain. Appears to include sufficient creativity to attain copyright protection.  But | seriously | folks   22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion page that will clear this one up at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:RunicArmanenFutharkCirclecopyrightVictorOrdellLKasen.JPG Robert C Prenic 06:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Image kept. PD-ineligible. -Nv8200p talk 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:609px-Schwarze-sonne--black-sun--sonnenradsFYLFOTS.JPG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Amending an already used image does not give one the right to release it into the public domain.  But | seriously | folks   22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I made this one as discussed in the upload area. Robert C Prenic 06:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Whitehousemap.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploader licensed as PD-release saying "The first three games have been released, thus the maps are fair game too"; this "sourcing" does not suffice. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Zork, the games were briefly made freely available to download but redistribution was explicitly prohibited. So claim is probably made under the misconception they were released into PD. Thomjakobsen 01:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Free as in beer, then. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Hayley_Hutchinson.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence uploader is copyright holder, has uploaded other copyvio photos. Videmus Omnia Talk  23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.