Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 November 27



Image:Lokomotiva stadium.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 ⚡  01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The World Stadiums site (http://www.worldstadiums.com/) claims to host free photos of football (soccer) stadiums around the world. However, investigations will show that it is a indiscriminate host of copyright violations. They have taken André Zahn's CC by 2.0 Image:Old Trafford inside 20060726 1.jpg here on Commons, and used it. Slapping their watermark on it, they did not bother to mention anywhere that Zahn was the original author. Furthermore, they should have released their modified image under a similar CC license but nowhere do their policies or actions come to that effect. This goes against the CC by 2.0 license Zahn has made the image available for use. Further examples of blatant copyright violation: All photos hosted on the site are very likely copyviolations. Agreement from Commons administrators here.Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BBC's file photo of the Emirates stadium &mdash; A reduced watermarked photo on World Stadiums
 * Anfield stadium's tour site &mdash; Cropped, resized, and watermarked on World Stadiums (note the "rubber stamping" editing for the world stadium picture to remove the logo)
 * Again for Anfield, the aerial view is an unmarked and larger version used as the background at this fansite (image URL is http://www.premiershipteamnews.co.uk/images/liverpoolcropped.jpg &mdash; the "cropped" suggests that this fansite has cropped it from a larger original photo). The World Stadiums site never used the larger original photo.  More incriminating is that they use the same cropping boundaries as this fansite's background.  Hence, they must have resized it and slapped their watermark on it to make it their own.
 * World Stadium's picture on the Kingston Communications Stadium blatantly reuses Skysport's interior shot and an edited version of this (resize, rotate, and stamp out the shadows)
 * World Stadium's exterior shot of the Busan Asiad Stadium is taken again from the BBC (direct image location). They just resized it.
 * The Denver Invesco shot on World Stadiums is a resized cropped copyright violation from Colorado Aerial
 * Their Maksimir stadium shots are taken from here and here (further evidence jutarnji has original shot&mdash;another view. For the aerial view, World Stadiums resized and rotated the original image, "rubber stamping" (copy and paste) surrounding areas to fill out the space opened by the rotation.  They even edited out the tower in the adjacent building.
 * 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:Tehelne Pole.jpg.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 ⚡  01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Same reasons as the PUI for Image:Lokomotiva stadium.jpg above. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 27 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:Maksimirworldstadiums.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 ⚡  01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Same reasons as the PUI for Image:Lokomotiva stadium.jpg above. Jappalang (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the same as the next image. Please note that you haven't got enough sufficient proof of a copyright violation here. There are numerous possible explanations which I doubt you have considered. Perhaps WorldStadiums actually have been granted permission to host those images under their own name; this is a common practice between two different domains in an attempt to increase awareness. Perhaps the original author of the image you think is being stolen wanted his image to be displayed on a very public and specific site suchh as WorldStadiums. You are going to have to e-mail WorldStadiums and bring this issue up with them and then post back here with results.


 * Additionally, just because they stole one image, it doesn't mean they have stolen all their images. Unless you can provide direct evidence that Image:Maksimirworldstadiums.jpg has been stolen from another domain and is originally NOT under a free license, then the image may stand without deletion. Providing possible light evidence of other images being infringed is not an eligible argument to delete a completely unrelated image. That goes for all the images you have marked for deletion simply because they are from WorldStadiums. Domiy (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. If one is to use a reliable source on Wikipedia, one has to show that the source fulfills our criteria for reliability. Likewise, when one wish to use a "free" image, then one needs to show that the image is indeed truly free.  The reliability of the image source comes into play here.  It is up to you, the uploader of the image, to verify the veracity of the image site's claim.  Here, I have proven them to be false on numerous occasions, and there is agreement.  World Stadiums is not to be trusted on their claim that their images are free.  As for this picture, the Maksimir stadium shots are taken from here and here (further evidence jutarnji has original shot&mdash;another view.  For the aerial view, World Stadiums resized and rotated the original image, "rubber stamping" (copy and paste) surrounding areas to fill out the space opened by the rotation.  They even edited out the tower in the adjacent building.  Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well according to the copyright terms on The Stadium Guide website, "We believe in free circulation of information and pictures over the Internet. Therefore we have not protected (or ruined....) our pictures with copyright marks or other safety measures (e.g. right click disabled). Feel free to use any pictures for personal use. When used for public purposes it would be greatly appreciated if those pictures would be properly credited.". --- It could therefore be safely assumed that A)either they have 'stolen' the image as well, and as it stands, the original author of the image is unknown, or B) they are the original owners of the image and according to their terms and policies, the image is able to be used in its current state on Wikipedia (so long as the source information and credit is changed in their name). Domiy (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyrights remain even if "stolen". Wikipedia does not deal in passing off copyright violations as free images.  World Stadiums' words are all contradictory to what they have done (hosting digital manipulations and copyright violations); their words are not worth our trust.  Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 3 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:MaksimirStadium.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 F4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Same reasons as the PUI for Image:Lokomotiva stadium.jpg above. Jappalang (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted image to the prior version. Better image and it is not watermarked with a website URL. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The picture is not anywhere on the World Stadiums site. It was uploaded by Jajaniseva, who licensed it as Creative Commons Sharealike 2.5.  However, when asked by administrator Dijxtra if he or she had taken the image, Jajaniseva never replied (see the user's talk page).  The image was changed to the World Stadiums version when its veracity has been called into doubt at Featured article candidates/Croatia national football team/archive3.  Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 1 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:Sandpoint22.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 ⚡  01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Labeled attribution at base of photo is to William B. Stegath which does not appear to match user.. and not declared self-made as others by user. Challenge right to issue under GNU License. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:57, 27 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:Sandpoint16.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 ⚡  01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Marker is clearly labeled property of State of Michigan and does not fall in public domain. ⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're absolutely right as to the other pic by the uploader on this page, but in this case, if the uploader took the picture himself, the fact that the marker is the property of the State of Michigan does not, by itself, give the state copyright in the marker. Generally, copyright does not prohibit "pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." 17 U.S.C. § 120(a).  Copyright in the text might be a closer call, but I think its incorporation in the "structure" of the marker brings it within the statute, as well.  Audemus Defendere (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, derivative work, the United States only has freedom of panorama for architectural works such as buildings. ViperSnake151 18:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While freedom of panorama correctly relates the historic rationale for the enactment of 17 U.S.C. § 120(a), the article's text does not accurately reflect the very broad language of the statute, quoted above, and its judicial interpretation, that would include the marker. The section is not limited to occupiable buildings.  It has been held by courts to also apply to artistic structures such as decorative towers.  Leicester v. Warner Bros., 232 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2000).  cf., Tiffany Design, Inc. v. Reno-Tahoe Specialty, Inc., 55 F.Supp.2d 1113 (D. Nev. 1999)(photos of publicly-visible exteriors of famous Las Vegas casinos, including landmark signs, not prohibited by copyright of architects or owners).  Remember also, that a park or plaza is as much a work of design or architecture as an office building, making the statute's protection an even better fit.  freedom of panorama is further less persuasive on the legal issue, as it is actually a discussion of a different, though similar, concept under German copyright law, with the US provision only compared in passing.  Audemus Defendere (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

-- Deleted per. Garion96 (talk) 10:22, 13 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:001 Match Mar11.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a magazine cover, but is marked as pd-self. Seems unlikely. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Complete with barcode and all. Looks very suspect.  Unless the uploader can explain it convincingly, it should be deleted. Sarvagnya 20:42, 2 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:DovHikind.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an image of a state assemblyman, not a federal official, no source it given.  MBisanz  talk 07:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It would appear the photo is from his state website. see, http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=048&sh=bio . The US Government tag is probably incorrect.  However, if there is source evidence that the photo is a freely distributed publicity photo, it is likely the image has entered the public domain.  There is discussion of a similar politician's publicity photo, including cites to relevant legal authorities, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_November_24#Image:Troyking3.jpg Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 24 1.13 Image:Troyking3.jpg]. Audemus Defendere (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The image is indeed from http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=048&sh=bio . I do believe that the image is in the public domain, but nevertheless I have sent a request to the webmaster to receive written permission. Abejschwartz (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Long as the webmaster certifies the website's copyright, cool beans. It's possible the Assemblyman has the original copyright in his personal name, if it's a campaign or similar photo. --Audemus Defendere (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted - Not a federal governmental work. New York state images are not (automatically) released in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 10:26, 13 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:MLV1.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 discussion was: Keep; for now- F ASTILY  (TALK) 01:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Its copyright may not have expired ­ Kris (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely what basis is used for the claim? The magazine was quite explicit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the image to be "PD-India", it must not only have been clicked but also published before 1948 -- which would mean that MLV would have to be no older than 20 at the time(fwiw, she looks a lot older than 20 in the image). Did the magazine really say that?!  Also the magazine published it in 1990.. where is the evidence that the image was published or atleast clicked before 1948?  Sarvagnya 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The freaking magazine was not born until 1983 and you expect us to believe that they clicked the photograph before 1948?! Sarvagnya 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll start off by showing something that's viewable online - this flyer was prepared for a famous MLV concert in 1980 - I think it's obvious that the image was clicked well before the magazine was "born". Despite Sruti magazine being a reputed publication, I'm first checking for proof independent of Sruti's assertion, so that this claim can be dismissed for what it is: baseless. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So in the first instance, you didnt check whether it is in the public domain, and didnt ask for the magazine's permission to publish it. After it is reported as copycio, you usually go and check for sources, right? ­ Kris (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, please don't misstate my position. A public domain image does not require a magazine's permission, just because they've used it. This is especially so when the magazine does not hold copyright over the image - this is something I personally clarified with the next of kin (who is no longer alive). I didn't think such an obvious public domain image would be made subject to such baseless frivolous claim (even by such a disruptive editor). As I've indicated, I'm checking for proof independent of Sruti's assertion and what I've just noted - the purpose of which is to demonstrate precisely how baseless this claim is, and the disruptive nature of the user making it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what does [this image have to do with the discussion? The point here is that you've claimed PD-India for [[:Image:MLV1.jpg |this]] image.  Now show us the evidence that the image was 'clicked' if not 'published' before 1948 - which is what PD-India requires.  Show us and be done. Sarvagnya 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This image was available prior to 1980 (i.e. prior to the magazine being born), so there's no doubt that the current PD image uploaded was clicked well-before the magazine was born. That's the relevance. If this is a good faith concern (which it isn't), then perhaps people would be more receptive to you ordering other people around. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, whatever its relevance to the present discussion, this image does not necessarily have to be from 1980.. it can be from 2008 too. Anyway, that's not the point.  The question here is - do you have any evidence to show that this image was published by 1948?  Yes or No.  If yes, place it on the table and be done. Sarvagnya 16:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ananda Vikatan - January 5, 1947 issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

--- kept - Garion96 (talk) 20:05, 13 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:Atypical lcyte.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 I1 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is taken from a website and the user released it into the public domain? The uploader does not appear to be the original creator of the image so this appears to be copyvio. Nick Garvey (talk) 20:05, 27 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.