Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 October 30



Image:Javed_Ghamidi.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The text used int eh free use provided template states, "not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. " This is a cmplete non-free image. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the terms and condition, this image can be used or altered for "non-commercial use". I believe that Wikimedia is a non-commercial organization and this is why this image was used.  TruthSpreader reply 04:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Although Wikipedia itself is noncommercial, material used here must be free also for commercial reuse. —Angr 18:02, 30 October 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:1947 Red Wings Roster.jpg
uploader is unlikely to be copyright holder as claimed. It would be best to recreate this table in wikitext rather than in including what is likely an unfree image of a copyrighted publication.  Birgitte SB  01:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very unlikely, however there must be a difference regarding copyright since this really isn't an image, it is a scan of a document. Fair use could be claimed but the information could aso easily be worked into the prose, no need for a wikitable. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 01:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean about a difference, as a scan of a document is an image. The information is so basic it is likely not copyrightable if it were transcribed, but as an exact image there are enough creative choices that it probably crosses the line.  It is better to transcribe the info or work it into the prose without pushing the envelope on copyright.-- Birgitte  SB  01:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Copied from uploader's talk pageIllustration digitally created by me (the uploader) by rearranging elements of text scanned from a noncopyrighted printed list of names. Possible "non-free" tag removed. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I suspect that the text you scanned was copyrighted and that you do not have the legal ability to release a derivative of the scan as public domain. The information itself is probably noncopyrightable, but you scanned a text rather than simply transcribing information.  But the discussion should take place at  Possibly unfree images where I will copy this.-- Birgitte  SB  02:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See comment by Krm500 above. The original issue raised here seems to be an essentially de minimis one however.(Centpacrr (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC))


 * The correct tag for this image is pd-ineligible. The information in the image is not copyrightable, and the text itself has no creativity. Nevertheless, there's no reason to use an image at all when the same information could be given as text. —Angr 17:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur PD-ineligible. - there are no copyrightable elements in this image. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anni-New-2008.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems doubtful that the uploader took this web-resolution photo with no EXIF data. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I have no objections to deletion but we need a photo of President-elect Nasheed because it is very important. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 07:27, 30 October 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:06-12-14 242.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As this is a photo of a 2-D object it is unlikely that the photographer/uploader is the copyright holder as claimed.  Birgitte SB  01:24, 30 October 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:UH IfA.jpeg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No indication that the state of Hawaii releases their images into the public domain (it is clear that the US government does but not states). Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 30 October 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:Suchart Thadathamrongvej.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Per this comment at Media_copyright_questions, it does not seem to fit under Template:PD-TH-exempt and "The Ministries, Departments or other government or local units shall be the owners of copyright in works created in the course of employment, order or control unless otherwise agreed in writing.", this would seem to be a copyrighted image, which would very replaceable (a living government minister). If we decide to delete, a lot of the images at Template:Cabinet of Thailand are of concern. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 30 October 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:Jacoulet - Jeune Fille De Saipan Et Fleurs D'Hibiscus, Marianes 1934.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Images that are sold on the Internet doesn't indicate copyright. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 30 October 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:Schematic Route Plan.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

labelled as Property of Capita Symonds Edgepedia (talk) 12:52, 30 October 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:Ballast Cleaning Start of Main Works Event.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

labelled as Property of Capita Symonds Edgepedia (talk) 13:16, 30 October 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:Crosskeys Scheme Board.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

labelled as Property of Capita Symonds Edgepedia (talk) 13:19, 30 October 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:Acrobat8pro.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User jon513 asked about copyright status of content displayed within the Reader program shown in July 2007. No reply has been forthcoming. An equivalent image can be easily created by anyone using Adobe Reader (i.e. everyone minus those people with a particular reason not to use it), using content known to be free (e.g. PDF rendering of WP content using e.g. PDFCreator plug-in for Windows). 87.165.197.55 (talk) 15:40, 30 October 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:ConAssembly.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Commons:Template:PD-India this will not be public domain for four more years (taken/assumed published in 1952). No indication why GFDL would apply.  howcheng  {chat} 17:26, 30 October 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:Garland Rivers.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Source gives no indication that the image is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. On the contrary, the image's licensing page (click the "Description" button) says "This image may be protected by copyright law. Contact the Bentley Historical Library for permission to reproduce, display or transmit this image." —Angr 17:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Currently, there are a few dozen Michigan Football player photos with similarly licensed photos. After over a month of inquiries with the Bentley library, they said that all images on the publicly available website could be used on wikipedia.  This happened last spring and I corresponded with permissions in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there an OTRS ticket number confirming that the images in question are licensed CC-BY-SA? Remember, permission to use on Wikipedia isn't good enough, as it doesn't extend to others who want to reuse our content. If the images really are licensed freely, then we can upload the high-resolution versions to Commons. —Angr 07:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know of an OTRS, but several of the dozens of these Michigan football images have passed image review before. They gave consent to use the images. I will try to see if I can get a clearer consent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just gotten through to the Bentley Historical Library and they have given me a request format for the bulk set of images. I will make the request by the end of the week, but I have track down all the images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the reply I have gotten for a list of twenty images. I do not think it is sufficient. Please let me know what I need to ask for: This email is in response to your query for permission to use digital images from our collections to illustrate various pages on Wikipedia regarding University of Michigan athletes. The Bentley Historical Library is pleased to give you permission to use the requested images from our Image Bank. We ask that all images contain the following copyright disclaimer: "This image may be protected by copyright law. Contact the Bentley Historical Library for permission to reproduce, display or transmit this image." We also ask that each image is attributed to the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan with the BL number.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's definitely not sufficient. They need to agree to license the images under the GFDL (or CC-BY-SA). See Example requests for permission for suggestions on what precisely to ask for. —Angr 21:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to try to contact them directly again during the week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had my first discussion with the University of Michigan Director of Licensing regarding the statement that "This collection is open to the public." and the WP licensing requests for either GDFL or CC. There is concern about use of images to give the appearance of endorsements by University Athletes.  Is there a way that a consent could be worded to alleviate this concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends, they can't prohibit any use at least. Regarding the appearance of endorsement, why would releasing an image under a free content license give that appearance? For now I have deleted the image. Garion96 (talk) 18:07, 26 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:JakeBrahm.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡  17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Living individual for which a free-use image could be obtained. Cirt (talk) 19:31, 30 October 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.