Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 February 12



Image:Devil Wears Prada.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is obvious promotional material. Image can be found all over the internet, found, initially here Quentin X (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Kept as fair use in Miranda Priestly, removed from Meryl Streep. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:17, 27 February 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:54ibnesafi.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 ⚡  01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No indication that this is a public domain image. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 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:22-cathedral.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 ⚡ 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No indication that this is a public domain image. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Cahedral was demolished in 1931. The photo seems actually much older, pre-1917 for sure. But in any case falls under PD-Russia. --Irpen 06:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Irpen. Almost unquestionably in PD. If it isn't, the copyright provider can always come forward with other evidence and present it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Kept as public domain. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:34, 27 February 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:30630081 jbg.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 ⚡  01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks very much like a promo photo for a replica uniform. Marked PD-self, which I seriously doubt it is. Mosmof (talk) 06:40, 12 February 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:Leasalonga_premiere.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 ⚡  01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No assertion in the source provided that the image is released under GFDL. bluemask (talk) 09:29, 12 February 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:Honor_Among_Enemies.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 I7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Although there is an assertion that Wikipedia was granted permission to use this image, there is no information on how to verify that permission. Rockfang (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hint: Try using page's history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hint: I did.
 * Just because the uploader's user name is the same as the creator doesn't mean he really is that person.
 * If you are referring to the line: Cover art for David Weber's "Honor Among Enemies". Illustration by science fiction artist David B. Mattingly. David Mattingly, the artist who created this work, personally uploaded the image and wish for the image to be used on Wiki in that article. This permission applies only to the low resolution version shown here, I could be wrong, but I don't think that is sufficient.--Rockfang (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. It's not sufficient to simply claim that a permission is given, or to give permission for use on Wikipedia use.
 * The copyright owner must contact the Wikipedia Foundation himself.
 * The copyright owner must release the image's copyright to the public domain or under a GFDL license, which means anyone can use the image commercially and/or modify it however they want.
 * Neither criteria is fulfilled here. That said, since the image is used to show a fictional character, you could probably use provided a proper fair use rationale is given. --Mosmof (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My correspondence with that editor makes me certain he is the person he claims to be (also, WP:AGF and so on). He chose the license for the image. So what's the problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt are anything you say is true, but the issues that have been brought up still remain:
 * As Rockfang mentions, permission for use on Wikipedia alone isn't sufficient. The copyright owner needs to release the image for any uses, including commercial use, and allow anyone to modify the image.
 * Since we're asking the copyright owner to release all rights to a copyrighted image, he should contact the Wikipedia foundation with a declaration to re-license the image under GFDL or PD. --Mosmof (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A high res verision can be found here, along with several other other places on the site, read the legal disclaimer at the bottom of the site Salavge corvette control (talk) 01:14, 14 March 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:156525w.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

not sure why this is marked as PD-US, considering it comes from the US govt. probably usable as fair use in at least one article Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Kept as fair use in Khmer Rouge and Communist Party of Kampuchea, removed from Weapons of the Cambodian Civil War. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:21, 27 February 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:Norodom-Sihanouk.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

i don't think there's any reason this is PD, as claimed Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Photographs from the French Foreign Ministry are "libres de droit à l’étranger et peuvent être reproduites avec la mention obligatoire « Ministère des Affaires étrangères - Service photographique », à l’exclusion des images des expositions scientifiques." Cripipper (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For non French speakers like myself, Google translated the above french into: Free for use abroad and can be reproduced with the obligatory mention "Ministry of Foreign Affairs -" Photographic service, excluding images science fairs--Rockfang (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Not nearly enough source info to verify that the image is actually from the French Foreign Ministry. Nor is it clear that "libres de droit à l'étranger" is really public domain. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:24, 20 March 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:06Canada_OP2.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 ⚡  01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as PD self, but looks very much like something from a professional phoro shoot. Guess it's possible the uploader is a professional photographer, but there is far too little info on the image, and his talk page indicate a history if mistagging images. Sherool (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted along with Image:Alar.JPG, a very similar image uploaded by the same person. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:24, 27 February 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:Abi titmuss.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 ⚡  01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Uplaoder claims to be author but talk page shows they have had copyvio issues in the past and have failed to respond to questions. in adition they claim to be the author of Image:King Edwards VI High logo.gif which seems doubtful Genisock2 (talk) 23:04, 12 February 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.