Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 August 20



File:Gorilla human comparative.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 ⚡  03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the Primate article (see WP:WikiProject Primates) and the two images it contains are probably protected by copyright (freedom of panorama?) Anyways, it illustrated the difference between a gorilla and a human and we can just use two separate images without worrying about copyright restrictions.  Zoo Fari  05:09, 20 August 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:20061015-XR1200-PROTOTPYE55.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 ⚡  05:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Watermark makes it unlikely it is under PD. note --  Luk  talk 06:17, 20 August 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:Freddiemercury.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 ⚡  03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The file is correctly credited to flicker.com (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37814055@N08/3479284116/) but there appears to be a concern at Talk:Freddie Mercury that the image may be a commonly posted copyright image. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this definitely looks like a case of Flickrwashing to me. Notice that the Flickr user said the image was taken in 2009--many years after Mercury was dead. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:11, 21 August 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:Truro34cath.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 ⚡  04:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Site from which this picture is sourced claims copyright and says no pictures may be used without permission - http://www.cornwallpictures.co.uk/Disclaimer.htm Simple Bob (talk) 15:03, 20 August 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:TruroCathedral-BVM-fromSW-01.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Source website has clear statement on copyright - http://www.cornwallpictures.co.uk/Disclaimer.htm - which this image infringes Simple Bob (talk) 15:04, 20 August 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:BIMC logo.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 G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this as the page on which it was used has been turned into a redirect. I was the original uploader. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 20 August 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:CornishPixie.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 ⚡  02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit of an odd case, but I would think that artwork on a mass-produced lollipop is still artwork, and probably would retain some copyright. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, it's possible it could have some copyright issues. The lollipop just came wrapped in a cellophane wrapper so there was no company name or logo, or any copyright details with the lollipop, so I assumed it could be used as a free image.--NeilEvans (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know if this was produced in another country, but US has automatic copyright, there doesn't need to be an 'all rights reserved' or even a copyright logo for a work to be under copyright. -- M  ask?  02:58, 23 August 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:Viper.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 ⚡  03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The source provided is broken and it appears that the file comes from the Six Flags website and may have their images copyrighted.  Zoo Fari  20:28, 20 August 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:ShaikhChandScan.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 G4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * involved files:
 * File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg was deleted as a uncitable copyvio of a broadsheet cover page
 * File:Malik Ambar.jpg was deleted as a uncitable copyvio derivative of that work... it was a crop of a image on the broadsheet.
 * File:Ambar Siar.jpg was deleted as a reupload of previously deleted image (Malik Ambar.jpg)
 * File:Malik Amb.jpg is a reuploaded copy of both Malik Ambar.jpg, Ambar Siar.jpg
 * File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg is the latest incarnation of the same file.

Puntd here from. The current situation does not satisfy conditions of the original DRV:

Attempts at compromise have been done several times. Starting on the Talk page. Then went to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests here. After File:Malik Amb.jpg was uploaded, File:Ambar Siar.jpg went to DRV at the uploaders request. At the DRV I attempted to explain the copyright problem of a uncited black and white image, being colourized by an unknown person then being published in a broadsheet without any Citations. DRV fizzeled out as original uploader assured they would scan a new image from a book (the book would be able to stand as the Citation for the image). Now a de-coloured version shows up File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg. I contend is the exact same picture (simply with the copyright fooled with even more again by unknown persons). Examination of the Metadata shows Date and time of data generation 20:49, April 13, 2009 for both images.

It is getting hard to conform to WP:3R as I have so far. IMHO it is covered by exception (Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.) At this point it is even getting hard to assume good faith, as statements like "The administrator who removed the picture admitted that it was a mistake" & "The Administrator claims it was not him who removed the picture" are outright falsehoods, and "careless editors like you" shows no assumption of good faith in the first place. Now we find Images are being Altered in attempts to skirt Copyrights, and copies of files are being uploaded even before their deleted versions are DRV'd. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Without speaking to this image's free/unfree status (I closed the DRV merely on procedural grounds), I feel as though I should chime in on the issue of 3rr. If an administrator decides that this is an unambiguous copyright violation, the image may be speedy-deleted, thus invalidating the need for repeated reversions. I'm not saying if it will or won't be found free (I'd rather not weigh in on this image). But if it is unambiguous, the problem is solved by speedy deletion. If it isn't an unambiguous case, then you shouldn't be edit-warring over it and just let the discussion take its course. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Exit2DOS that this appears to be a copy of the previous file sent through a digital black-and-white filter, which accounts for some of the splotchy-ness of the image and the exact same 1200x1800 pixel size of the image. Comparing the two in separate tabs, placement of features is also identical.  I also note that the thumbnail metadata on the two images, as viewed from the GIMP, is identical, and includes more of the original broadsheet than the images themselves.  Given these, I believe this is an unambiguous case, and am speedy deleting the image, but would appreciate a set of eyes to check over this.  Cheers, everyone.  lifebaka++ 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I object. I am the uploader. I had uplpaoded the pic with appropriate licensing. How in the world can anyone erase the picture and claim it not to be authentic. The image is a true copy of Sheikh Chand's book and how can anyone delete the picture without even knowing anything about the subject. When appropriate licensing tag has been given, one has no right to delete the image. Its unfortunate to have a picture of Malik Ambar, a great general removed for silly reasons. I had also stated the sources. I propose that the picture be restored at the earliest for educational and representational purposes. Nefirious (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)