Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 August 26



Image:SWAN.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)

Image source: "Copyright © Shan Women's Action Network (SWAN). All Rights Reserved." Van helsing (talk) 12:48, 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:SWAN.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Image source: "Copyright © Shan Women's Action Network (SWAN). All Rights Reserved." Van helsing (talk) 12:52, 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:Kyberuserid.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 G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Retract permission to use. Lycurgus (talk) 13:03, 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:Powadhpunjab.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)

This seems to be a derivative work of this image. The uploader's contribution seems to be circling an area in red and overwriting the "watermark" with a label. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:06, 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:PrenjHerzegovina.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)

A contributor tagged this with the article copyright template, here, as duplicating this source. Uploader was not notified. I am moving the image here for evaluation, since it's not an article, and letting the uploader know of these concerns in case he or she can verify permission. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:18, 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:GatlingRBG1.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)

Had a look at the an archived version of the source website (no longer there) using Google translate, but can't find any evidence of this beeing PD. Seems to be a blogg-ish news site and all they seem to say about the image is that it's "widely seen on the internet". Also the website itself have a generic "Copyright (c) 2004 DKBNEW.COM. All rights reserved" footer. Sherool (talk) 17:56, 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:1985track.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 I8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged with PD-USGov but sourced as http://www.oocities.com/hurricanene/1985track.jpg. Sdrtirs (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It says U.S. Department of Commerce right at the top of the image. I see nothing unusual about finding it somewhere else. It is in the public domain after all. Anyone is free to put it on their website. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:06, 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:Emailspam.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)

Screenshot without a source information. Sdrtirs (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to assume bad faith on the free license. Assuming of course that this was a screenshot of free software created by the uploader, that would be the source. It strikes me that the subjects of the e-mails are simply slogans and are not sufficient on their own for copyright (the contents of the e-mails would likely be another story, as would a deliberate collection of spam subjects from the same author). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:12, 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:Georgenorcross.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 upload comment give http://courierpostonline.com as the source of this image. However this is just a commercial news website, I can find no information that explain why this should be tagged as public domain. Sherool (talk) 21:00, 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:ABQGREEN City Logo.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 ⚡  01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence that the image is in the public domain. It is clearly a derivative work of the Albuquerque logo, see Official City of Albuquerque Logo. Uncia (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I found that image here (on the city of Albuquerque site). It's definitely a copyvio, and should be deleted asap. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 05:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After some time/thought, I removed the PUI tag and changed to DB-I9 (copyvio). Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:40, 28 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:Rolls1sthit.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)

Looks like TV Screenshot - See top of image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the picture with my camera off the television. Is that not ok? I read all the rules and I didn't think I seen it but I could have missed it. If it is wrong I am sorry and will change it.--Biofreeze8 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * TV footage is (C) to the TV production/ brodcast entity, you don't have the rights to sublicense it under GFDL or CC-BY.

Picture is fine under fair-use rules though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really; the article includes several free images that well illustrate the biographical subject, and so we cannot sanction the use of a fair-use image. 68.248.235.165 (talk) 01:03, 20 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Mill hagen1.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 asserts GFDL-self, however the image source states another person created the image. Given his users history I doubt the claim is valid. Kevin (talk) 22:49, 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:Maas Bruxelles 19580001.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)

Possible copyrighted medals. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to your assertion:

And just possibly the "medals" are not copyrighted. I never asserted that I was the designer of the medals. The designer has his or her (mint) mark on the medal.

I however assert that I am the owner and creator of the digital image of the medals. I also assert that if I did not own and possess these items and create the digital file (image), no one on earth would know they existed, except me.

I also assert that each medal is inscribed differently than any and every other, therefore each medal is one of a kind, just as each image is one of a kind.

I do not think that the designer of the medals that were awarded in Bruxelles in 1958 has a right to dictate whether I can or cannot create a digital image of my own personal property, nor do you.

That would be like Ford Motor Company telling me that I was not allowed to create a photograph (digital image) of my 1958 Ford sedan because I was not the designer or the builder of that particular make or model.

Or if I photographed a piece of pottery in a museum, that I do not own the right to do so because I did not create the pottery. Or If I photographed Mt. Rushmore that I cannot publish the photo because I did not carve the mountain.

Or If I created a digital image of a statue of Jesus Christ, I would need to seek the permission from the designer/artist of that statue to publish or copyright my intellectual property (photograph).

The very fact that my digital image is different than the digital image of another photographer (of the same or similar object), for a variety of reasons, makes each and every digital file created, capable of receiving a separate copyright or patent.

I fail to see how anyone can claim that they owned the right to my digital image but me.

Sdrtirs, your whole argument is absurd. On top of that I think you have a lot of balls making this argument in the first place. It must be a power thing with some people around here.

Now that you have me pissed off, I believe I will seek a patent attorney for advice and submit my digital image:Maas Bruxelles 19580001.jpg to the Library of Congress and ask that they provide it as free content, while providing me attribution as the photographer.

In the meantime, if you do find the designer of the medals, (because I do not know who it is) make sure that you give him proper attribution and tell him he did a nice job. But don't forget to tell him that he cannot use my photograph unless he gives me attribution as the creator of the digital image. Meantime, go piss up a rope.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW.

I did some home work and I hope it don't bite you too hard. The designer of the medals name is Marcel RAU. See the outside link:

http://users.telenet.be/emanuel.vandorpe/artmedal/raujs2.htm

I still feel I own the digital image of my personal property.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC) - Deleted. Derivative work of copyrighted work. Garion96 (talk) 03:12, 27 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.