Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 November 22



Image:AngelinaLove.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 ⚡ 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing summary. Says the source is "Own work by uploader" but than says that the author is "Tabercil" and permission is "(Reusing this image)". The uploader here is "CandiceWalsh", not "Tabercil" who is listed as the author. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an edit of Image:Angelina Love in London Sep 2008.jpg, which is on Commons. A quick message to User:Tabercil (an administrator and prolific commons contributor), or a couple of minutes of investigation would have cleared this issue up quite quickly. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is appearing of late you have some issue with me as you seem to have an awful lot of sudden interest in my noms and making bitey remarks. I am glad you are an admin and know about other admins that are a "prolific commons contributor" however I look at an image. I go off what the image is and what the info pages say. In this case I clearly stated above that there is a "Confusing summary". I sated exactly what the summary said. Did/Does the page have a link to "Tabercil"? No. Does the uploader say "Tabercil is an administrator and prolific commons contributor"? No. Did the uploader respond here? No. Did they respond on my user talk page? No. Did the uploader responded on their user talk page? No, they deleted the message. was there a direct link to the image on Commons? No. Your reply could have simply said "It's an edit of Image:Angelina Love in London Sep 2008.jpg, which is on Commons" Period. End of story. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

- Kept - Garion96 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 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:Liverpool Waterfront Sunrise.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 ⚡ 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no licence information. ┌ Joshii ┐└ chat ┘ 04:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Kept - It does has licensing information. Garion96 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 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:Gemma Arterton with Dainel.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 ⚡  01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears on http://bondgirlsfan.com/gemma-arterton-and-olga-kurylenko-dreams-come-true/. Site is copyrighted, the image itself is hosted on a CBS News server. Probably not user-created. Huon (talk) 11:45, 22 November 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:Fire chrome explorer.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 ⚡  01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Both the Firefox and Google Chrome logos, of which this is a derivative, are copyrighted. &mdash; neuro(talk) 15:11, 22 November 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:Fire explore.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 ⚡  01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Both the Firefox and Internet Explorer logos, of which this is a derivative, are non-free. &mdash; neuro(talk) 15:12, 22 November 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:Fire chrome.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 ⚡  01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Both the Firefox and Google Chrome logos, of which this is a derivative, are copyrighted. &mdash; neuro(talk) 15:13, 22 November 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:July_26_-_Ninoy_Aquino's_most_famous_portrait.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 ⚡  01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

derivative a still copyrighted photograph Bluemask (talk) 17:09, 22 November 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:2006-07-04 KL logo.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 I3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This image is claimed to be for non-profitable use only; there is an image Image:EKV-D66.jpg (a smaller version of this) which is claimed to be public domain however that version does not cite a source. — Snigbrook 23:09, 22 November 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:Antiguan 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 as I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a self made collage of "of notable British people of Antiguan descent" however the image sources are "off Wikipedia and Flickr". Would need direct links to each individual image to verify if they are all free use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Two of the four images are definitely free images from Wikipedia (follow the links to the articles on the individual subjects). Given that, I see no reason to assume bad faith on the rest. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Further digging does turn up this: Image:V.Johnson.jpg, Deleted because "CSD I4 - No source information" So we can not assume it was a free use image as there was no source. The creator of this collage would not have known that either so we can assume good faith as far as that goes. In trying to track down the Emile Heskey image I see several have been used but have been removed for copyvios. Image:Player-image-1741.jpg or Image:Emile Heskey.jpg may have been the one used in this collage. This one is not, but was one of the ones removed from WP as well for copyvio. The image that is being used does appear at Goalpost but is not currently on WP so it may be one of the ones deleted. When it comes to possible copyvios and asking for the sources or permission from the original photographer, if it is not given, is not assuming bad faith, it is being safe. There is a difference. All it takes in one copyvio to bring a lawsuit. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking in the deletion log, and at the deleted image itself, that is a completely different picture than the one included in the collage. Your argument does not hold up. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As you have the power to look "at the deleted image itself" you should have done that first and reported your findings here instead of reporting that "Two of the four images are definitely free images from Wikipedia". Taking the bitey tone of "Your argument does not hold up" does not help to find the other two sources. I have no way of knowing what the deleted image looked like, nor do other non-admins, so the comment was unnecessary. But if you do notice I did provide one link to Goalpost that contains one of the images that any one, even a non-admin, can see. There is no free use license associated with it that I could find and please also note that images name, player-image-1741.jpg,  and compare it again to the Wikipedia image that was deleted for "I9: Blatant copyright violation" : Image:Player-image-1741.jpg. If it is, as you say, not the same image, surely it is a weird coincidence. But there is no denying that the Goalpost image is the same one used in this collage. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:31, 23 November 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.