Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 December 7



Image:MarcSinden.jpg
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

email sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org explaining copywrite and releasing under Wikipedia terms. 7/12/08
 * This can be kept; OTRS permission has been received at 2249848. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lacstdl.jpg
Tagged PD-USGov but the image involves some "Canadian forces"... MER-C 06:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jefferson_Overlay.jpg
Satellite photo => unlikely uploader is the copyright holder. MER-C 10:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eurekastation.JPG
Does not seem likely that the uploader has the right to release this image Stifle (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete obvious copy from Google Maps. --NE2 13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per above, definitely a copy/picture of Google Maps. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eureka depot.jpg
No indication that The gus14 is "Lindsay Korst", and the user has a history of uploading copyvios. --NE2 13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:TheTopperman.jpg
This appears to be a photograph of a mural, and so is a derivative work. We would need the permission of the mural artist in addition to the permission of the photographer. Uncia (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair use rationale has been provided for low resolution image of student mural. Ryan Utt (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:03 Front Foot Ultrasaurus JPG BB.jpg
Image seems to have been uploaded on the assumption that if no one claims copyright, the image is public domain, which we know is not the case. The image is not in use. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:1024px-GBNewYorkState-PlbDot.png
Image not in use, no source cited. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:1280x1024 pf pattern julius.jpg
Image has a clear copyright notice on the bottom corner and, even if the uploader did create the graphic, I think that little monkey icon is copyrighted anyway. Isn't it a corporate mascot? J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:1909 yrbk pg48 FrClassPhoto Edit.jpg
No evidence image was ever published, source website says nothing about PD, and author could not have been dead 100 years. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC) -- Kept - Garion96 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Class photos are routinely published as part of a yearbook. Indeed, the file name specifies the specific page of the yearbook that this was published in. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Indeed, the file name on Wikipedia actually matches the name of the file on the source website, so I think it's clear that it's from page 48 of the 1909 Vanderbilt yearbook. I agree that the PD-author tag is wrong; it should probably be PD-US, though it's no less free. Esrever (klaT) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Serena_Ryder_2002.jpg
No evidence of GFDL license. Kelly hi! 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, the image was uploaded twice. The other copy (since deleted under CSD I1 as a duplicate) had a cc-by-3.0. No evidence of either license. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Scottstorch.jpg
Low res, no meta-data, looks like a publicity shot. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:--ScoutsChris3.png
The uploader has released this under a free licence, however, they don't own the copyright to the logo as displayed in the image, so they are unable to release it under any licence. Unless, it can be demonstrated that it is PD. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The scouting organization was founded more than 50 years ago and the creator of the patch is anonymous. The logo itself is now in the public domain per PD-Canada and Commons licensing guidelines. Given that this was scanned, there was no creativity in the creation of the image itself. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is not a reason to keep. 1) Whilst the organisation may have been founded more than 50 years ago, this does not equal the creator of the patch being anonymous. Not being bothered to find out who created it is not reason to claim it is anonymous. And there is no evidence this is in the public domain per PD-Canada. Because there is next to no details on the image page, and no evidence of said claims it should be deleted, unless firm evidence can be provided. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Canada requires active proof of authorship to show that a work is not anonymous. And I quote from Commons: "If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous then the copyright lasts either 50 years following publication or 75 years after the making of the work, whichever is earlier...provided the authorship does not become known in that timeframe." [emphasis mine]. Keep in mind too that the image is of a Fleur-de-lis, a hundreds-of-years-old stylized design. A slight variant of which is extremely unlikely to attract signed authorship. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a Keep outcome. However, it could be relisted at IFD for further discussion. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:--ScoutsChris3.jpg
The uploader has released this under a free licence, however, they don't own the copyright to the logo as displayed in the image, so they are unable to release it under any licence. Unless, it can be demonstrated that it is PD. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is not a reason to keep. 1) Whilst the organisation may have been founded more than 50 years ago, this does not equal the creator of the patch being anonymous. Not being bothered to find out who created it is not reason to claim it is anonymous. And there is no evidence this is in the public domain per PD-Canada. Because there is next to no details on the image page, and no evidence of said claims it should be deleted, unless firm evidence can be provided. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See my reply above. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:RussiaOlegPantukhov.png
The image page states the work may in PD in Russia, however, without any source information, we are unable to determine if this is correct. However, given the age of the guy in the photo, it is unlikely to be PD. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep.Biophys (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep on what basis? The fact that I nonimated it for deletion, and are only voting keep to go against me? That's quite a pathetic reason for "keep"ing there Biophys. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 09:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was debated previously and decided to be kept.Biophys (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a fair use claim on the image, therefore it does not fall to be decided here. See WP:NFR. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zuhirjabar.JPG
No reason why iraqsport.com would be releasing images into the public domain. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kadishman2.jpg
I believe that the ultimate copyright holder may be pleased about the image, we would need the actual auctionsite photographer to release it into the public domain. There are already other images of his work so it is not necessary to have this questionable copyright one. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am the person who uploaded this photo several years ago. Kadishman's sheep paintings (there are literally hundreds of them, all different) have become his most famous style, so if you remove the picture of the sheep and leave his other less-known works you'd be doing a disservice to the article. I am not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge, the photographer of a 2D painting has no copyright rights because no artistic expression and no original work of any kind went into producing this photo (the case may be different for photos of 3D statues, because the choice of angle, focus, etc., constitutes some original work). So I (again, not a lawyer) do not think that the photographer of the painting, or the auction site, has any copyrights in that image. If anything, I would be more worried about the current owner of this specific painting. It isn't clear to me whether it is up to Kadishman (the original painter) or the current owner of the painting, to allow its photo to be redistributed. If life was fair, both would have this right, but I have no idea if that is actually the case. Nyh (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's fine that his sheep paintings are famous of his style. That itself can be a fairuse rationale for one image, but "In 1995, he began painting portraits of sheep (see picture on the right), by the hundreds, and even thousands, each one different from the next" doesn't seem like enough to pass policy.  Also, Menashe Kadishman already has two images of his other works (both sculptures and both from Commons) to consider.  Is it possible to get an image that someone took of the artwork, so that's it's only one layer of copyright to deal with, not two?  I don't like the idea of using the commercial auction website's images when it's possible for an individual to find an image of his work.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anil Ambani.jpg
No meta-data, looks like it has been taken at a press conference. No explicit source info. I suspect this image has been taken from elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aliharam.jpg
No indication why iraqsport.com would be in the public domain. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Iraq2006.jpg
While it would be difficult to replace, it is only be using for illustrative purposes. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This image says it is being used under fair use, therefore PUI has no jurisdiction over it. Try WP:NFR. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bloomyclose.jpg
No indication that uploader is the copyright holder. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Normal 04.jpg
Incorrect license, this is a music video image, it would need a fair use rational and adds nothing to the understanding of relevant article anyway. — Realist  2  21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedied as a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:BigTen-USA-Map.png
Claimed as public domain, but is a composite image of a public domain map and multiple copyrighted non-free logos. Rameses The Ram (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)