Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 August 24



Image:Rex Weyler2.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: kept with OTRS Skier Dude  ( talk ) 02:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Uploader says photo was provided by its subject but, despite request, offers no information about who created the image or indication that creator has licensed use KenWalker | Talk 08:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am the uploader, and have responded to you, KenWalker, directly (twice since Aug. 22nd) and explained the situation and that I am in the process of securing the information needed. You have been informed that the images in question are not violating any copyright and the only possible copyright holder (Rex Weyler) wishes the images to be treated as public domain. Documentation will be added to the images by Aug. 29th providing full disclosure and information. BlissfulGirl (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From discussion on uploaders talk page, it sounds like there is a prospect of sorting this out once the work week begins, so any action on the images should hold off for a few days. -- KenWalker | Talk 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Permission forms have been sent via email. Have been advised to expect return of them before the end of this week. BlissfulGirl (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Permission forms have been submitted to OTRS. BlissfulGirl (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS permission confirmed for this image. . Cirt (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Rex Weyler3.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: kept with OTRS Skier Dude  ( talk ) 02:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploader says photo was provided by one of the subjects shown but, despite request, offers no information about who created the image or indication that creator has licensed use KenWalker | Talk 08:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am the uploader, and have responded to you, KenWalker, directly (twice since Aug. 22nd) and explained the situation and that I am in the process of securing the information needed. You have been informed that the images in question are not violating any copyright and the only possible copyright holder (Rex Weyler) wishes the images to be treated as public domain. Documentation will be added to the images by Aug. 29th providing full disclosure and information. BlissfulGirl (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From discussion on uploaders talk page, it sounds like there is a prospect of sorting this out once the work week begins, so any action on the images should hold off for a few days. -- KenWalker | Talk 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Permission forms have been sent via email. Have been advised to expect return of them before the end of this week. BlissfulGirl (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Permission forms have been submitted to OTRS. BlissfulGirl (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS permission confirmed for this image. . Cirt (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:School04.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Taken from the school website, no explanation for the public domain asertion. The domain linked to as source is no longer in use, though you can see an archived version here, a larger version of this image also appear on the current school website, again no info to support the public domain claim. Sherool (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2008 (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:Ferenc_Juhász.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Going by the name I guess this could be usefull in Ferenc Juhász, though there is no info on the image other than the old depreciated PD tag, without more info on source and copyright stauts it will have to go. Sherool (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2008 (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:Korean_pancake-Jindallae_hwajeon-03_cropped.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 F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Image not found at given Flickr source. OTRS permission claimed, but no ticket number. Kelly hi! 00:56, 24 August 2008 (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:DSCF0787.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Source: anonymous. Sdrtirs (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? Can someone please explain this to me instead of mass nominating all these images with a boilerplate explanation? Anthony (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Wikipedia requires source information so that the licensing information can be verified, and these images have no information about their source. —Bkell (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How would source information help you verify the source? Are you going to call the source up on the phone and ask them if they really licensed the image?  How are you going to get eir phone number?  What if I just claim that I am the source?  What if I upload the images to Flikr and then put the source as the Flikr URL?  What if I create a sockpuppet and claim the source is the same as the uploader? This requirement makes no sense.  The source wants to remain anonymous.  That is the right of the source and in fact the source has a legal right under the law (moral rights) to remain anonymous.  What if I ask the source for permission to reveal the identity to an administrator, on the agreement that the administrator will not reveal this to anyone else?  Will that be enough?  Seriously, I don't get it.  I understand "that Wikipedia requires source information", but this requirement makes absolutely no sense.  Anthony (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, one reason that the source should be identified is that this image is licensed under a Creative Commons license, and there is no possible way to enforce the terms of that license unless the author identifies himself or herself. If the author really wishes to remain anonymous to the public, however, you may consider following the steps at Requesting copyright permission. If you follow these steps and forward an e-mail with the appropriate permissions to the listed OTRS addresses, the contents of the e-mail will be visible only to editors with OTRS access. This is probably a better option than simply revealing the source to one particular administrator. —Bkell (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The creative commons license these works are contributed under does not require attribution. In any case, I've decided to reveal the author.  These works were all created by my good friend Alan Smithee, who released them under the CC-SA.  Anthony (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could it be deleted for being orphaned and a really bad out of focus image that would probably never be used! MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea for this one. The ones below aren't as bad, though. Is there a method for deletion of "a really bad out of focus image that would probably never be used"?  Anthony (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2008 (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:Kennywood.jpg, Image:Kennywood racer blurred.jpg, Image:Kennywood phantum.jpg, Image:Closet.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: deleted Skier Dude  ( talk ) 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Author: anonymous. Sdrtirs (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See above. Anthony (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Weissmann Bollmann 1996 CD.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The uploader is extremely unlikely to own the copyright to this. That will belong with the record company/graphic artist. JD554 (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2008 (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:Fima.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The page linked to as the source is no longer there, however the City and County of San-Fran Sisco website carry a regular "SFGOV Copyright 2000-08" footer, it's not a federal agency so not a clear case of "US gof PD". Sherool (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2008 (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:Jhstamp.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Claimed. However, this tag states, "This template also does not apply to postage stamps published by the United States Postal Service after 1978. (See 206.02(b) of Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices)." The caption for this image in Johns Hopkins University indicates that this stamp is from the Great Americans series, which apparently began in 1980. —Bkell (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familar with Wikipedia policies or copyright law, so I'm not sure if this even applies, but can the image be displayed under fair use provisions (educational purposes)? According to the USPS website, images of stamps can be used as long as the source (USPS) and the copyright is stated (https://www.usps.com/rightsandpermissions/fair-use-exceptions.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanman (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the appropriate Wikipedia policy (see Non-free content), the stamp can be used under a fair-use claim only if, among other things, there is no free equivalent available. In this case there are likely to be free images of Johns Hopkins, so I think the stamp image could be used only to illustrate an article specifically discussing that particular postage stamp. (See also the text of Template:Non-free stamp.) —Bkell (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (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:Nancy34.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely that User:Wad572 is the copyright owner of this promotional photo of the Middle East's most famous singer, Nancy Ajram. — Thuresson (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2008 (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:Marcus Licinius Crassus02201.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Confused licensing situation—tagged as, but also has a fair-use rationale. The statue itself is certainly in the public domain, but the photograph of the statue might not be. —Bkell (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2008 (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:Tony Klitz Guardsmen 1977.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Claimed uploader creation, but that presumably means the photograph, not the painting. Chick Bowen 20:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well of course it means the photograph. I owned the paintings at the time, though obviously they were painted by Klitz.  How do you suggest we represent a painting by an artist?  Sitting in a gallery and painting it is allowable and not a copyright violation.
 * Over to you.
 * Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline at Commons:Commons:Derivative works gives a good explanation of the issue here. Chick Bowen 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And if the photo had been of a Porsche, does that infringe the designer's copyright? Or the Beijing Olympic Stadium the architect's?
 * Since this is an encyclopaedia, and since I uploaded them in good faith, but do not much care what happens to them now except that they do add to the article about the artist himself, may I suggest that you alter the licence to whatever is appropriate? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-free 2D art. Also, taking a picture of a car is not infringement because you cannot copyright objects with a utilitarian function (that is, can't copyright something that does something and has a purpose other than being pretty). There are other non-copyright restrictions they use for stuff like that (like trade dress), but we don't care about that. And yes, the Beijing National Stadium is technically copyrighted, but then you got Freedom of Panorama in China, which allows photography of any building (and sometimes art) permanently located in a public space. ViperSnake151 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That tag is correct, but a full fair use rationale would also be necessary. Chick Bowen 02:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why ever not create one? I'm not about to.  Time spent discussing is time not spent acting.  I expect you are correct, but far better to enhance the place than remove stuff.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2008 (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:Tony Klitz circa 1958 St Mary Le Bow, London.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Same as above. Chick Bowen 21:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Same answer as above. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2008 (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:Kasamse34561.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploader claims this obvious publicity photo as his own work. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (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:NR Marina.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Size and appearance of this image make it unlikely that this is submitter's own work, as claimed. Description and caption of photo are insufficient to allow the image to serve as a useful illustration of anything (it's a marina, apparently supposedly in New Rochelle, but the marina is not named anywhere). The user who uploaded this image is a confirmed sockpuppet of a blocked user (sockpuppeteer is now banned, but was not banned when image was uploaded) who had an extensive record of falsifying image sources. — Orlady (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2008 (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.