Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 July 17



Image:Chester cath uk.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 article was tagged with copyvio (though no notice was given to the uploader). The tagger indicated that the image can't be public domain as it is not 70 years old. However, in placing the copyvio, the tagger also eliminated the release provided, which suggests that the uploader is asserting that he owns the copyright. I'm bringing it here for consideration, since there's no source provided and this suggestion of authorship has evidently been challenged, and notifying the uploader. Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:32, 17 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:Julian.barratt.boosh.live.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 discussion was: deleted Skier Dude  ( talk ) 02:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Not really marked as creative commons on flickr. Damiens .rf 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Follow the "Some rights reserved" link under "Additional Information" on the right-hand side of the source page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stincodiporco/103184437/ 70.179.100.216 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that was fixed! Good. --Damiens .rf 22:27, 17 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Murcer monuments.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 suspect this image is not by the uploader. The uploader has a history of problems with images. The image does not appear to be taken from the stands during a game, but actually on field or perhaps from the dugout. Further, this image looks suspiciously like a scan, as do a number of other images of his, such as Image:Yankee stadium 1943.JPG. Image created entirely by himself? Interesting that it's blatantly a scan, and from 1943. — Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 17 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:SheDAISY-2002.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)

No evidence permission was granted to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What type of evidence do you require?

Vala M (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A ticket validated with WP:OTRS from the original owner of the image confirming that it's been released under the GFDL.  Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 04:21, 25 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:Memristor.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 discussion was: kept with license updated Skier Dude  ( talk ) 02:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC) ''Fair use image from HP. The problem is that we could create a free image of the same thing by producing a diagram, or making our own electron microscope picture of a memristor. Per NFCC #1 it is therefore not compatible with policy. Additionally it is not fair use per law, as it is in no way transformative. If HP at some future date decided that they didn't like us (or a commercial re-user) using the image, they would have a strong case that what we are doing is not fair use.'' Megapixie (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NFCC1 does not require that we replace an actual image with an original open-content-licensed diagram or rendering - that same logic is applicable to every single actual fair-use photograph used on the site, and the logic here is reducto ad absurdum.
 * Transformative use is not required under law (nor Wikipedia policy) - see Fair use, where US code is cited:
 * Notwithstanding the provisions of sections and, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
 * 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 * Our fair use policy explicitly relies on our classification as nonprofit and educational, in the nature of scholarship and teaching / educational / reporting usage. In this particular case, an image released by a research lab illustrating a new technical development is going to have low or no market value - it was released to help publicize the technical development, and as such any educational reuse, particularly by other informational sources, increases the effective market value of the image to the lab in question.
 * The usage here is entirely compliant with our policies on NFCC.
 * (Note: I closed a fair use challenge on the image itself on these same grounds - Megapixie is asking for independent review, which is fine, but has been told this already) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually NFCC 1 does explicitly require that we eliminate any fair use photograph that we can replace:
 * Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
 * For a real example of a non-replaceable fair use photograph/image see Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or The Disintegration of the Persistence of Memory.
 * Our fair use policy explicitly relies on our classification as nonprofit and educational
 * Actually we should make the assumption that downstream users may make commercial use of wikipedia. The last thing I can say is to point to the counterexamples on the policy page: 2 and 4. Megapixie (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A drawing (as opposed to the source photo) is not equivalent to the source image. Your interpretation outright requires that we redraw as a diagram every fair use photo in the English wikipedia, a position which is grossly inconsistent with the policy and precedent.
 * The two unacceptable uses you specify are:
 * 2. A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses.
 * 4. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima).
 * This is not a generic image cropped from an unrelated or poorly related commercial source. It's a very specific image of the invention provided by the inventor used on the article describing the invention.  It is as topical and appropriate as one can be.
 * The situation regarding downstreams is a legitimate concern, but the policy remains what it is - this is a legitimate and compliant use. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Georgewilliamherbert; insofar as the image is framed as being a photograph of (one of?) the first known examples of a memristor, and not a generic image of the device, it is not replicable (as the original artifact itself may well have been destroyed or lost by now; either way we can't know). --208.118.171.254 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Georgewilliamherbert; insofar as the image is framed as being a photograph of (one of?) the first known examples of a memristor, and not a generic image of the device, it is not replicable (as the original artifact itself may well have been destroyed or lost by now; either way we can't know). --208.118.171.254 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:37, 25 February 2012 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

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

I without a shadow of a doubt don't think this is really self-made. ViperSnake151 22:09, 17 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:Facial Hair Types.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 ⚡  01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that this image dates from 1900, at least not in this configuration. At the very least we could use a more specific source than "the now defunct 'November Beard Club'". This image is exactly the same as, and possibly scanned from, a postcard that circulated in the 1990s. Also, as "Balbo" refers to the facial hair of Italo Balbo, it most likely does not date from 1900 unless Balbo was sporting a beard at age 4. Gyrofrog (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the uploader of the picture in question. It is listed as c1900, as in Circa 1900 = approximately or about 1900, plus or minus a decade or two.

The November Beard Club is defunct: , disbanding in 2001.

While the November Beard Club likely did not hold the copyright to this image, it has been re-printed in the book "The Man's Book: the Indespensible Guide For The Modern Man" by Thomas Fink (1996) (Hardcover: 192 pages; Publisher: Weidenfeld & Nicolson (14 Sep 2006) Language English ISBN-10: 0297851632 ISBN-13: 978-0297851639) citing the November Beard Club as the source: . The November Beard Club has also been cited as the source of this image by the Organization for the Advancement of Facial Hair: . The postcard of the same image, was likely printed from the November Beard Club's image, or was used freely using the image as a public domain image that the copyright had expired.

The source of the November Beard Club is not ideal, however, there is little doubt that this image is in the public domain because of it's date, given the beard styles of Franz Josef (1830-1916) and Italo Balbo (1896-1940). The image itself is a valuable historical resource pointing to facial hair styles of the early 1900s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockjetty (talk • contribs) 22:24, 1 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.