Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 March 25



Image:Gillbanner.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 I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A photographic reproduction of a 2-dimensional work is not eligible for copyright, therefore this cannot be released by the uploader. — Parhamr (talk) 06:52, 25 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:Crissy Moran.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sdrtirs (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - copyright statement invalid. αѕєηιηє t/c 19:57, 25 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:Katherine_paterson.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 ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 on the library of congres page, in fact there is no spesific info on the copyright on the image at all. The legal notes page linked to simply states that the copyright to the material belong to their respective owners, and that basicaly researchers have to puzzle it out and obtain nessesary permissions on their own. No indication that the uploader have obtained any spesific permission to release the photo. Sherool (talk) 19:38, 25 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:Kpat.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 ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No info on the source website about the copyright status of this particular image, scertainly nothing that would indicate that it's been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license as indicated by the uploader. Sherool (talk) 19:42, 25 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:LotusConnections Profiles.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 as I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Shows logos, copyrighted program, copyrighted OS... αѕєηιηє t/c 19:50, 25 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:148826076_3616e4fd37_b.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 I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File is same as this Flickr image, which is all rights reserved. Nilfanion (talk) 20:20, 25 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:Nokia_5610.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 F7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks very much like a promo image rater than something the uplaoder made in his house yesterday as he aparetly claims... Sherool (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Appears pixel-for-pixel identical to the first image on this page on the Nokia website. Marked "for media use only.. pictures must not be altered in any way". Gr1st (talk) 19:40, 2 May 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:Nokia-5610xpressmusic.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 I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks very much like a promo image rater than something the uplaoder made in his house yesterday as he aparetly claims... Sherool (talk) 21:06, 25 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:Sonyericssonk610i.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 I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks very much like a promo image rater than something the uplaoder made in his house yesterday as he aparetly claims... Sherool (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah looks like, and thats your own opinion do you have any proof that the uploader did not make this image. I've seen images of this quality, and better made before by friends who are not experts at doing this. Get proof then you may do as you wish. Seanor3 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 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:GA-Cyclone1994.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 I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No indication of GFDL release by source Nilfanion (talk) 21:36, 25 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:Carly Smithson.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Living person, not a recluse, free image can be created Corvus cornix  talk  21:42, 25 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:Kate in Stardust.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 ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Living person, not a recluse, free image can be created Corvus cornix  talk  21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS PICTURE! I PUT THE COPYRIGHT ON IT. WIKIPEDIA DELETES ALL OF MY PICTURES. PLEASE SAVE THIS! KevinMeghan (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Images of living people in general fail fair use criteria. See FU, #12.  And even if you could claim that she's gone into hiding and it's impossible to find an image of her, a screenshot of a character from a film is only valid fair use in a discussin of the film, not to decorate the actor's page.   Corvus cornix  talk  22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Decorate" is pejorative, "illustrate" would be better. If the article had a nice throw rug on the wall, or a fractal image added only to provide a splash of color, that would be "decorative".  In the current situation, however, the image is being used as an illustration. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your analysis of the "fair use" value of the image, of course, but I do think it would be better to avoid POV words such as "decorate" in this context, unless they actually apply. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:26, 26 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:Tempest-1.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. Faile WP:NFCC#1. Free images exist. -Nv8200p talk 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image tagged as PD-BritishGov - however stated photographer as Charles E Brown, Flight Magazine 1944 - Charles E. Brown was not UK Goverment servant but was a press photographer - therefore image probably still copyrighted.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of his work as a commercial photographer, his entire collection is held at the RAF Museum under their auspices. I therefore would classify his work as being held under RAF copyright, therefore available as part of the UK government copyright. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC).
 * It depends on when and how the images were transferred to the RAF museum and who actually owns the copyright. They certainly were not Crown Copyright when they were created - according to http://www.rafmuseum.org/london/collections/photographic/charles_brown.cfm the collection was purchased in 1980, which even if the images became crown copyright when they were purchased, would mean that copyright would not be expired.  Charles Brown died in 1982, so its possible that they might not become pd until 2052 (70 years after death.)Nigel Ish (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * However, since the RAF Museum presently holds the copyright and distributes materials freely, Charles E Brown images should be considered available to the public, much as any other materials that are held by UK government agencies. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC).


 * Sorry Bzuk, it doesn't work like that, for a museum held collection, even one purchased by a semi offical body like the RAF Museum, it is the original copyright that is important, which in this instance is that held by Charles E Brown or his estate, and which presumably transfered to the RAF Museum. It was my understanding that a work did not become Crown copyright merely by purchase...

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words, because I honestly and correctly attributed this work to Charles E Brown the penalty is that the work is to be deleted, in spite of it being used in lots of places elsewhere and attributed as being "RAF official" or "RAF Museum", in which case these must all be in breach of copyright. I've already pointed out the same image appears in black and white in Commons. Nigel Ish you brought this issue up in the first place, do you have any useful suggestions for how to correctly resolve any copyright issues with this image? There are a number of other images which have been correctly attributed to Charles E Brown in various Wikipedia articles.Minorhistorian (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I appreciate that the image (and probably the other Charles E Brown photos on Wikipedia was uploaded in good faith, unfortunately, I don't see many easy solutions - you might try making a fair use argument for this photo, in that there may not be many PD colour in flight photographs of Typhoons (although this wouldn't help the images on Commons). I presume the same problems would apply equally to the other photos both here and on Commons, and theoretically even to any Charles Brown photos that people have uploaded and not correctly credited.  This really needs the opinion of someone who knows more about the appropriate parts of UK copyright law.  Nigel Ish (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice that somone has now put a fair use justification on this image - which may be enough to save it here.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone thought to contact the RAF Museum to clear this matter up for once and for all time? If someone can provide an email contact I would gladly ask who holds copyright on the Brown photographs. I would suggest that this would help others who have fallen into the same trap. Minorhistorian (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just had a look at the museum website http://navigator.rafmuseum.org/ which specifically precludes the use of images for commercial gain. It also states "Any such use must be properly attributed to both the Trustees of the Royal Air Force Museum and where noted on the record, the Copyright Owner." In other words attributing such a photo to Charles E Brown, as I have already done (should his estate still be the copyright owner), already goes some way to fulfilling the stipulated requirements.Minorhistorian (talk) 06:13, 27 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:061116.friedman.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 I8 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

While the image is defenently tagged as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 on the Flickr page I have some doubths about the status of this image. Firstly it looks like the Flickr user (some guy from Romania) have simply tagged the entire photo set the image is part of as CC licensed. Including several images that are obviously not his and/or non-free mixed in with a couple of personal photos. Also the image just happens to be byte-for-byte identical to this image the University of Chicago News Office used in it's piece about his death. The news.uchicago.edu version of the image also happens to be the top hit on Google image search for "Milton Friedman". Sherool (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This image has been transferred to Commons, but has been nominated for deletion there under the above rationale. Those interested in continuing the discussion should register an account (or use SUL if an admin) and participate there. Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 02:43, 28 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.