Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 December 10



Image:236 wholepage.png

 * 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 ⚡  01:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not public domain, far too big to be fair use, given its context in the article. Mr.Z-man 03:08, 10 December 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:BoselliLogo.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  19:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I speedied this image as a blatant copyright violation from. User claims it is his own work. Even though created in something like MS Paint, the image is still essentially identical to the source image and, in my opinion, should be deleted again. Listing here to avoid an edit war over the image. — (ESkog)(Talk) 12:30, 10 December 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:VonManstein1956.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 ⚡  01:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As of now on Wikipedia there are five free pictures of Manstein. I don't see how this one can be a fair use. Colchicum (talk) 17:55, 10 December 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:Sarikei Toilet with Federal Complex 2006.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 ⚡  01:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unknown source, yet all images uploaded by User:Ivanhg are allegedly non-free. DavidDCM (talk) 21:05, 10 December 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:BluePolesBigPicture.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 ⚡  01:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The picture is blurry so it's hardly helpful. But in any case, the claim that the image is GFDL-compliant is incorrect. A photograph of a copyright-protected work cannot be released under a free license. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep GDFL tag may be correct, this is an Australian photograph, in an Australian museum no reason to doubt it's genuineness.. This is an important image by an important artist..It is most effectively and importantly needed here:Blue Poles and should be kept....Modernist (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC) withdraw per below...Delete. Modernist (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Australia has artist's copyright too, and the image is very poor. But I strongly object to these deletion tags that remove the caption, thus prejudicing debate here. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a copyvio. Freedom of Panorama in Australia and UK allows photos to be freely reproduced of 3D work and works of "artistic craftsmanship" (e.g. pottery, textiles) on permanent public display (including museums) but not of 2D work such as paintings. The statement "A photograph of a copyright-protected work cannot be released under a free license" is true in this case, but not in all. This image could be claimed as Fair Use, but it would be better to find a good reproduction for that purpose.  Ty  07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Note however that a quality reproduction is available from the museum's website. Also, note to Johnbod: I wasn't aware of the caption issue. This is what Twinkle does automatically. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to get it right, a 3D work on permanent display in a public place (including a museum) is not copyright-protected, although if that work were in an edition and other copies were elsewhere and not on permanent display in a public place, then those other copies would be copyright.  Ty  01:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think (although I might be wrong) it is Twinkle; I think it is the way the template or whatever is written. The caption text is still there, but is not displayed. It should be possible to change this, & I have raised the matter here Wikipedia_talk:Possibly_unfree_images. The caption here said very little in fact - just the museum name. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's more than the painting in the shot. It also shows the surrounds and objects in the foreground. Blue Poles is not a 2D work. The picture contains glass shards which stand out from the surface. Not sure what the problem is here. Surely nobody is claiming that a blurry oblique photograph of a painting in its gallery context is a copyright violation when included in an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It may not be fully 2D, but I would be amazed if it qualified as a sculpture, and was PD that way. The nom is indeed claiming what you say, and I think they are right. That the pic is blurry detracts from its usefulness, but not its copyright status. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment This painting is enormously important and hopefully a better version will be uploaded in replacement of this blurry version - with the right FU copyrights...Modernist (talk) 13:43, 13 December 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:Drake_Passage_-_Orthographic_projection.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Wrong forum. The image is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Claims to be made by uploader, but an identical image that has lower resolution appears at this BBC article attributed to Science. 76.84.16.175 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 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.