Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 February 10



File:JustinGuarini concert screencap3.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 ⚡ 14:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Original author is listed as "Shelly", who has not indicated placing this source video in the public domain. Website operator has indicated that there is no copyright policy on the website, so copyright still remains with Shelly. Until it can be verified that this video is actually in the public domain, it should not be considered free. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  04:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep See the previous PUI and IFD discussions. This third one is overkill. Garion96 (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a valid permission is sent into OTRS. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a huge fan of OTRS, but this is excessive plus it wouldn't make much of a difference. Sometimes we really can believe people. Especially since I already had e-mail contact with the uploader. See one of the previous two debates. Garion96 (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've had email contact with the uploader, you could surely send that into OTRS. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, if you have proof that this is a free image get an OTRS ticket number. That is the only way this image will stop being questioned. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  09:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This third debate is still overkill. It is possible to simply believe uploaders (and editors like me who even e-mailed the uploader before I closed the first debate). This is not so complex or suspicious it needs an OTRS ticket. Garion96 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the fourth? Or fifth? We have two valid ways to show that there is permission, ticket, and a mention on the website itself. If we have valid proof then it will not be questioned again. Keep in mind that if this image stays, it will likely be moved to Commons. They will eventually question it, especially as it is a living celebrity. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but rules is rules. You can only WP:IAR so many times for the same thing. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  10:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be with IAR, just common sense. Since there is a third way, assume good faith. With under certain circumstances we can do. This is one of those. Garion96 (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If this keeps going on and on, nothing will be decide. So might as well just keep it. Jeremy706 (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I withdraw this nomination. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just worry that on Commons this whole this will happen again... Oh well. File is now at Commons:File:JustinGuarini concert screencap3.jpg. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  02:43, 13 March 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:Savolainen.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 ⚡  05:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No indication that this image was actually taken by the uploader. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  04:33, 10 February 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:Zhou psv training.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 ⚡  08:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I can see on the linked (chinese) website that indicates this is public-domain. A (babelfish) translation tells me this is a corporation and I cannot see any indication of free licencing Peripitus (Talk) 05:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I am not sure which option to choose when uploading, i assumed it was under free domain because this is an 'image exchange' website, where photographers can freely upload their content and many websites and blogs are allowed to post images from there. In the fourth paragraph it states that 0sports is an internet tool for resource sharing for photographers, websites, commercial enterprises, etc. Maybe I should send them an email requesting permission for use on Wikipedia? Or does Wiki not prefer specific licensing for non-free images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelsfang (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 February 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:Cellsitepagasa.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 ⚡  11:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

lacks meta data for an image claimed as self made. Bluemask (talk) 08:52, 10 February 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:GenSenga27June06.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 ⚡  11:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

web resolution, lacks meta data for an image claimed as self made. Bluemask (talk) 08:53, 10 February 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:Panatag_lowtide.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 ⚡  11:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

lacks meta data for an image claimed as self made. Bluemask (talk) 08:58, 10 February 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:Pugad_island.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 ⚡  11:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

lacks meta data for an image claimed as self made. Bluemask (talk) 09:00, 10 February 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:Celerio_reef_island.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 ⚡  11:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

lacks meta data for an image claimed as self made. Bluemask (talk) 09:01, 10 February 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:Xev-Seeberg.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 this discussion was delete. There is no evidence that the copyright holder has released this image under the GFDL. No permission on file. Image is plausibly not licensed freely (and without proof otherwise, we have to assume so). -Andrew c [talk] 22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the GFDL license on this image may be incorrect; see File talk:Xev-Seeberg.jpg for more. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the uploader "hasn't the foggiest" who owns the copyright. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  11:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the uploader, perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. In fact, I know with complete certainty that the original copyright holder was Salter Street Films -- I was there.
 * What I was trying to explain in my note was that there have been successive acquisitions of Salter Street's intellectual property over the past decade. Echo Bridge Entertainment currently owns the Lexx property (at least the distribution rights) through its recent acquisition of the Alliance-Atlantis International library.--OldCommentator (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But is there any way to prove that this file was released under this license by the copyright holders? ~  JohnnyMrNinja  22:35, 23 February 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:AFEBS interview with Wolfman Jack by USAF Sgt Gary Smitherman - 1983 USO tour at Ramstein AB, Germany.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 ⚡  06:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unclear that the uploader is the copyright holder Stifle (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Has any attempt been made to contact this user via email? They haven't contributed in a while, and have likely not seen this discussion. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  10:47, 6 March 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:Dexter Wansel.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 ⚡  11:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No evidence that the uploader owns the copyright, odd-angled fuzzy picture of a non-notable person. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  17:41, 10 February 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.