Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 July 16



Image:HMAS_SYD_Wiki.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 ⚡  01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. The image is of web resolution and has no metadata. Kelly hi! 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This report was apparently made because of a deletion review that I initiated regarding another image that had been uploaded by the same editor and subsequently deleted and is apparently based on the resolution of the image and lack of EXIF data. Of course these are no guarantee that an image has been stolen. This image appears on the website operated by the Australian politician who is the subject of the article where this image is used. No assertion of copyright is made on the website. While visiting his offices on another matter, almost two weeks ago, I spoke to the politician's staff members, including the webmaster, and was told that they did not know who the uploader was, there were no restrictions on the use of either image and they were happy for them to be used on Wikipedia, which explains why no copyright is asserted on the website. At the other image's DRV one editor claimed, in relation to this image, that it was "from this event and, while copyrighted, you could claim fair use iff [sic] it where [sic] used in an article on the ceremony. The claim on the image page that the uploader owns the copyright is not plausible". However, I pointed out that the event was widely covered by both the print and television media and photography was not limited to military personnel. I also noted that I was unable to find a copy of this image in the Defence media archive. This obviously questions whether it is copyrighted by Defence at all.
 * There are a number of claims made at the DRV that may be relevant to this image. I will not repeat them here for the sake of brevity. Suffice to say I have rebutted them with examples. In short, there is no evidence that the uploader does not hold copyright while there is evidence that he may. That does not mean that he does hold copyright for this image but it also does not prove that he doesn't. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There needs to be no explicit claim of copyright - works are automatically copyrighted at time of creation. Kelly  hi! 22:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be no need but failure to make a claim makes the identity of the actual copyright holder unclear. As far as I've been able to determine, there is only one person claiming to hold the copyright and that is the uploader. There is no evidence to dispute that claim, just unsubstantiated suspicion. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the copyright status of this image is unclear, and the quality of it, and proximity to the subject, raise reasonable suspicions. If we're going to use it, though, it needs to be free and it needs to be clear that it is free.  A good starting point for that would be any feedback we could get from the uploader, but they have not edited since April 28.  Mango juice talk 18:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly clear that only the uploader is asserting copyright over the image and since he is claiming copyright it's also a reasonable assumption that he is claiming to be the source. Suspicions are just suspicions. They're not facts, although facts are apparently not relevant. What I'm seeing here is that there is very little point in uploading an image of this pollie. The one I do have, that I photographed myself, really needs to be cropped to be used in the infobox. That would remove the exif data and make it immediately subject to listing as a PUI. And then, God forbid, I put a poorer quality, smaller version of it anywhere on the web, or even not on the web at all, then went on a holiday away from Wikipedia, I'd return to find it deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, I think you're perhaps overreacting a little bit. :) Cropping a photo doesn't necessarily remove the metadata - for example, I recently cropped the photo used on the Alan Gura article using GIMP and the original data is still intact. It probably depends on the software you use. Besides, you don't really fit the profile of a drive-by copyright violator. Kelly  hi! 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Suspicions of copyright violation are a big deal. Aussie: I would be much more comfortable with your image than this one.  The fact that you understand copyrights already goes a long way... a lot of people don't.  These images are suspicious: they look professional, and are claimed to be self-made, but a lot of people think "self-made" can include things like scanning the image from elsewhere or cropping an image found on the web.  Such people tend to upload just a few images, usually related to the same subject, and then vanish: just like this uploader.  The uploader's absence is a big deal: all they did was select something from a drop-down menu; an explicit confirmation would be really helpful.  Mango juice talk 12:22, 23 July 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:Albert Medal in Gold for Life Saving.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 ⚡  01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is obviously a contemporary photo of a medal from a 1914-1918 conflict (not a photograph from 1914-1918, as the image page asserts; no camera then was capable of such quality). The source, in fact, asserts copyright subject to non-derivative and non-commercial provisions. We can't use this. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:35, 16 July 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:Shannon lee.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 ⚡  01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the provenance of this image is questionable - it looks like either a straight copy of a copyrighted work, or a derivative of the same, and either way claiming to have "Created it entirely by myself" and licensing it under a CC variant seems inappropriate. Avruch  T 20:32, 16 July 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.