Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 29



File:Triconegravir1_big.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. 

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC) This image (as well as some others related to resophonic guitars) comes from Lubos Bena's web site. I got permission to use these images: see Successful requests for permission/Lubos Bena. claims this permission is not specifically GFDL because the reply doesn't make this explicit, rather only an informal "you can use this in your encyclopedia" which might not include third party rights etc. I was under the impression that it was, because this is the permission I asked for, and the boilerplate message explains at some length what this entails. The permission email is also not logged in OTRS as far as anyone knows, because the permission predates it. Some discussion has already taken place on my user talk page. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to doubt the request for permission process, even though it has been superseded by a new system (OTRS). The e-mail sent to the copyright holder makes it clear that GFDL is the license type that is being agreed to. The copyright holder transparently agrees with these boilerplate terms. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have nothing that will stand up legally here. That is the issue. — neuro  (talk)  16:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you a lawyer? I'm certainly not, and thus I'm not qualified to speculate on the potential legal defenses that successful requests for permission provides us versus OTRS; but it strikes me that Wikipedia is free for philosophical and not legal reasons. We can always respond to a take-down notice if we get one. Is there any reason to doubt the veracity of the request for permission? Any history of copyright violation? No to both. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I e-mailed the copyright-holder asking for an explicit GFDL release to be sent do permissions-en. I'd ask that we give him a suitable period of time to respond before deleting the image, if that's the verdict. – Quadell (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been no reply, so we'll have to go with the information we have. – Quadell (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, I'd say this is free. The copyright holder was asked "I am specifically seeking your permission to use these images... we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License... With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website." We have to assume the copyright-holder read the e-mail that he responded to. He was told we can only use it if he agrees to GFDL terms, and he said he gave approval. Yes, it's not as explicit as we'd like, but I think the plainest reading is that he gives permission to use it under the terms specified. – Quadell (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2009 (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.

File:Jermaine Dupri.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 ⚡  05:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Border/thumbnailing make it seem unlikely that uploader is copyright holder as claimed. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's now tagged as non-free. – Quadell (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 16 May 2009 (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.

File:Feel 3LW.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 ⚡  03:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thumbnail of what appears to be a music video, in which case uploader is not copyright holder. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:07, 29 April 2009 (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.

File:Hristo Stoichkov.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 ⚡  15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on uploader's other uploads, this is likely copyrighted, but I cannot find an original source. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:11, 29 April 2009 (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.

File:Rashad Khalifa 1989.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 ⚡  15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Uploader claims the following: "i have the same picture that Edip has (via 19.org), but my scan is slightly higher quality and mine isn't PROPAGANDA FOR 19.ORG (which is an ANTI-SUBMITTERS organization.) it's my picture, i'm opening it up for the world to have. 19.org (aka Edip Yuksel))". The mere act of scanning does not give the uploader the copyright of this image, so the PD claim is false. Ragib (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this image is also on Commons here, and if our determination is to delete, the folks over there may be interested in this discussion as well. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:38, 29 April 2009 (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.

File:77394-1737-ed-benes large.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 ⚡  15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Image looks like it was grabbed from some other website. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2009 (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.

File:AndieTong.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 ⚡  03:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Image appears to have been taken from some website. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted, also low res and an orphan; much better resolution and sourced image illustrates article on person. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2009 (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.

File:Asif Zardari.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 ⚡  15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely that uploader is the copyright holder. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2009 (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.

File:AliOlympicTorch.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 image is kept as far as PUI is concerned. The image is released under GFDL, but the depicted item is used under fair use. The image has now been tagged as having no fair use rationale. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The image shows conflicting licenses. Rockfang (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will need specific instructions on what this means and how I may rectify it. The issue is too vague for me to parse. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The image currenty has both GFDL-self-with-disclaimers and Non-free 3D art on it. As far as I know, an image can't be non-free and fall under the GNU Free Documentation License.  They are mutually exclusive (I think that is the right term).  The image appears to be a photo of a 3 dimensional work of art.  It will probably need a rationale added to the image's page.  I listed it here in the hopes of getting another person's opinion on the matter.--Rockfang (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What specifically is the "non-free 3D art"? Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 16:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Typically that is term is used for statues, sculptures, etc that aren't very old.--Rockfang (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The torch is a utilitarian object and not a work of art IMO. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the "pedestal" it is on?--Rockfang (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The pedestal is incidental and not the focus of the image. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that matter? It is still in the shot and quite visible.--Rockfang (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the pedestal isn't a work of art: it's part of the display case. The illegibility of the text on the pedestal also seems to make issues relating to the pedestal seem unlikely.  --Clay Collier (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that this image may be listed here by mistake. I honestly don't understand what the issue is.  Nobody seems to be able to clarify it.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 13:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't listed by mistake. As I stated above, the image's page has 2 conflicting templates on it and needs to be fixed. Once it is decided which template needs to be removed, then the problem will be fixed.--Rockfang (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that conflicting templates is a reason to remove an image file. Somebody who understands these things just needs to figure out which templates are appropriate to apply.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 16:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why I listed it here.--Rockfang (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just to defer to the group conclusion, whatever it may be. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's perfectly valid for a photo to released under the GFDL, but for it to also contain a reproduction of a copyrighted structure that needs a non-free tag. In that case, using both tags is the correct procedure. Here, I doubt that Non-free 3D art is really needed, though it's conservative to put it in anyway: the torch may be copyrighted, but as a utilitarian object I highly doubt it. And the incidental pedestal information is no more an infringement than File:PS2Slim.JPG or File:Videogameretaildisplay.jpg or any other off-angle, valid use. – Quadell (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To any closing admin, please disregard the bot's comment above. Thank you. :) Rockfang (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2009 (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.