Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 October 11



Image:Covenant-RTC-CSI-AT.pdf
These files have in common that they were uploaded in the mistaken belief that being public documents puts them in the public domain. They are also unencyclopedic and orphaned. —teb728 t c 05:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Declaration David Miscavige 1994.pdf
 * Image:Declaration Guillaume Lesevre 1994.pdf
 * Image:Declaration Jonathan Epstein 1994.pdf
 * Image:Declaration Marc Yager 1994.pdf
 * Image:Declaration Monique Yingling 1994.pdf
 * Image:Declaration Norman Starkey 1994.pdf
 * Image:Declaration Raymond Mithoff 1994.pdf
 * Image:Declaration Thomas Spring 1994.pdf
 * Image:Declaration William Walsh 1994.pdf‎
 * Keep all Declaration documents, but Delete the "Covenant" document. The declarations are filings in federal court, United States District Court, and clearly have the markings as part of the court case itself, case number, etc. The "Covenant" document may be proprietary as being originally produced by the organization itself, not clear on that one. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The declarations were filed in the court but they were not created by the court. Rather they were created by the attorneys for the plaintiff and by the various people making the declarations. By being filed in the court they became public records, but that doesn't put them in the public domain. See WP:PD —teb728 t c 06:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment: Yes, however WP:PD does not address this specific issue. These declarations were filed as part of a federal court case in United States District Court, they were never asserted as copyrighted by any legal entity in the first place, and became part of the court record of the United States federal court case. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Reply Copyright doesn't need to be asserted: A writing is copyrighted simply by being created—unless it is explicitly released into the public domain. Becoming part of the court record doesn't change that. —teb728 t c 06:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think you understand - these are not copyrighted writings, but instead formal court declarations, with the full intention of being filed in United States District Court. This is akin to an affidavit or testimony given in federal court, which is not copyrighted, but a matter of the court transcript and court record. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * An attorney in a civil or criminal lawsuit acts as an officer of the court and thereby all the filings of a federal court case become "federal court documents". This is why the header of all filings by attorneys bear the specific name of the court, f. e. "U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia", etc.Martin Ottmann (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Even if the declarations are PD, I still they should be deleted as orphaned and unencyclopedic. But perhaps this is not the forum for deletion on those reasons. Should I relist the declarations at IfD? —teb728 t c 23:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, in that case they should not be deleted, but moved to Wikimedia Commons. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, public record != public domain. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the first one, that is correct, but for the others these are not just public record but court filings. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: The first one was deleted, the rest I moved to Commons. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE - commons showing through --Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, why are they not showing up as redlinks? Cirt (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:St_Mary's_Isle_at_extremely_low_water,_Douglas,_Isle_of_Man.jpg
This image is tagged as GFDL-presumed, but I do not think it is. The author is absent. At the source link the following copyright notice is found "All material on this site is copyrighted and may not be downloaded or reproduced without the owner's consent and then only with hyperlink (full clickable link) to the owner's website (...)Even with express copyright permission, material on this site may only be used if full hyperlink/s (clickable URL credits) to this site AND clear indication of the source site which we, in turn have credited. You expose yourself to legal consequences if full cumulative source credits are not stated at all times." This text does not support the GFDL tagging. Also the requirement to have a clickable link limits re-use to only electronic versions ie I could not use it in a paper newsletter. Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shekina2006.jpg
No metadata, looks scanned from somewhere, wrong license, orphaned. OsamaK 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ginsu demo on QVC.JPG
most likely professional Samuell Lift me up or put me down 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC) - Kept - looks legit. Garion96 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shenandoah3.jpg
Metadata recodes that it has been scanned using a scanner, source != uploader, wrong license, orphaned. OsamaK 19:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sleepyhollowbook2.jpg
Looks a film cover. OsamaK 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sitescreen.PNG
Non-free screenshot of a website. OsamaK 19:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sitescreenshot.jpg
Non-free screenshot of a website. OsamaK 19:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sitecapture1.jpg
Non-free screenshot of a website. OsamaK 19:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Simple_Kapadia_4.jpg
No metadata, looks screenshot from a movie. OsamaK 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Simple_Kapadia.jpg
Same as. OsamaK 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Simple_Kapadia_3.jpg
Same as. OsamaK 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Simple_Kapadia_2.jpg
Same as. OsamaK 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:S-211 PAF.jpg
source website gives no indication image is in the public domain, source is a commercial website with the comment ''The slides sold through www.AviationSlides.com are for collecting purposes only. The copyright remains with the photographer.'' MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:HMS Peacock 1.jpg
UK public domain claimed (70 years) when ship pictured was built circa 1983 possibly crown copyright. Source website gives no indication it is released into the public domain. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ilfracombe morning.jpg
According to the Flickr page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/cenz/31664485/ this is a CC-NC image. Not free enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You know the most helpful thing to do would be to send a mail to the author requesting a change of licence rather than delete it almost on sight. This policy is ruining wikipedia. JHJPDJKDKHI! (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contact the author yourself. We can only assume he knew what license he wanted to use. —teb728 t c 00:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. As editors of wikipedia we are not limited to 'only' assume that the author knew what licence he wanted to use. We may assume that the author may not be aware his images are being used on wikipedia and may be ok with them being used here. If you want to grow wikipedia in the best possible way DO NOT assume that the authors would not change licence. I reckon 9 times out of 10 they will change it if you ask politely. Removing these images on sight damages wikipedia, it removes important carefully selected content taken from external sources and offers no replacement. Although deletions by editors may be well intended they are quite irresponsible practice. JHJPDJKDKHI! (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)