Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 February 20



File:Moscow Conservatory 1867.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. 

Uploader's claim is clear--that the image shows "Moscow Conservatory when it opendd [sic] in 1867." Obviously this is not true. Thus, copyright claim is misrepresented, we have no authentic source, and we have no choice but to delete, as I have now done. Chick Bowen 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also raised on Commons: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conservatorio de Moscú 1867.jpg

As raised by the IP user on the image page, there is no way the picture could be taken in 1867; it is more likely the 1960s, based on the model of car in the foreground and that Tchaikovsky still had not make his mark in the 1860s. Furthermore, as the building still exists, this image cannot be claimed as under fair-use as it can be replaced by a free image, thus failing WP:NFCC#1. Jappalang (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was 1967, and the user was wrong. :S OboeCrack (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An image taken in 1967 cannot be public domain unless the photographer releases his or her copyrights. That would require an OTRS.  Jappalang (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

KEEP presumably the photo was taken in the U.S.S.R.: (rename? &) retag as such (with a dating estimate?) (possibly the (1867) date is some kind of mis-translation, & what was originally meant was that the building was constructed and/or opened in 1867? i am not aware of any basis for 1967 as the image date, i think it was simply stated as a contrast to 1867)

soviet era copyrights seem to be in a state of flux right now, aka: "it's messy". clearly, this pic seems to belong in that category, so let's file it there, & then deal with it in the same way as all simillar soviet-era photos

& lets make an extra effort to get in touch with the original uploader here? a lot of the time they don't get properly notified, or don't get the notice in time

Lx 121 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The 1960s was raised due to the car in the foreground. As for Soviet era copyrights, it is not that messy.  There are definite classifications of which copyright applies (usually PD-Russia or PD-Russia-2008).  The image was brought here for discussion on its copyright status, hence delete or keep; hence its vote should be on that basis, and not so that it has to be brought here for discussion again at an indeterminate time.  I resent the insinuation that the uploader was not informed.  Please take the time to check his Talk page history; he was notified as soon as the image was nominated here.  Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 1 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:TRADITIONAL GREEK FOUSTANELLES.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 ⚡  18:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

unlikely to be self-made as claimed, was uploaded back in 2005 by an uploader who also had multiple other images deleted as copyvios. Uploader has been absent since 2006. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

KEEP it's a couple of snapshots of a mannequin in traditional greek costume. not exactly professional work. unless we have some solid evidence that it's been "stolen" from someplace else, or that absolutely everything this person has uploaded has also been "stolen", assume good faith? Lx 121 (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with the nom. Seems to be a professional photograph taken from a web context (with terrible jpg artifacts, I might add). User doesn't seem to have uploaded any original content.-Andrew c [talk] 01:26, 10 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:Herald.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. 

Moved to Ffd see that discussion. Having 3 different discussions open for one image is a bit much. As this clearly IS an unfree image (not possibly) I'm closing this discussion. If you care, please take part in the other active deletion discussion.-Andrew c [talk] 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient fair-use rationale. User:Yousaf465 04:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad faith nomination. The above user has been desperately trying to remove any anti-Pak stuff and push for anti-India propoganda in WP . Please see history of the image also --  Tinu  Cherian  - 04:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fair use rationale is not valid. Image doesn't foreseeable meet NFCC. It's current use in the one article is not appropriate. The image is not iconic in relation to the topic, nor is there critical commentary on the image. Magazine covers aren't to be used like this. (that said... this image is already tagged as unfree, so PUI isn't the proper venue, I don't think). Maybe tag the image has having an invalid fair use rationale, or take it to IFD?-Andrew c [talk] 15:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Image has also been listed at NFCR.-Andrew c [talk] 15:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, then the discussion should be held there. This is not really the right page for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NFCR is a discussion forum not a deletion forum. So far as I am aware, images listed there are deleted only if they are also tagged for speedy deletion or listed at PUI or IFD. —teb728 t c 21:42, 20 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:Makelliher.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 Keep. The Flickr image has an appropriate CC-BY license.-Andrew c [talk] 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a crop from an image on Flickr, found here: http://flickr.com/photos/labor2008/2989938570/in/set-72157608544590639/ The profile for that account (found here http://flickr.com/people/labor2008/) appears to be for Bernard Pollack, affiliated with a labor union. This is not the same as the person credited for the image on the image page: Shawn T. Perry. There is no indication the photographer, Shawn T. Perry, has released the photo to be used beyond Flickr. Jonathunder (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

KEEP: i waded thru the flicker info. shawn t. perry is apparently a photographer who works as a part of the group that operates that flickr account. they have a very large number of images posted, mostly related to union/employment-type politics. the pictures look legit, not like they were copied from media sources. the pictures all have dates & camera info, and are credited variously; some with individual names, some not. perry has multiple photo credits on images posted by them, all cc'd.

the image we are debating is a crop of one of his pics, taken at a rally for al franken attended by union activists.

http://flickr.com/people/labor2008/ account name : aflcio2008

Bernard Pollack appears to be the name of the contact person (or head?) of the group.

Lx 121 (talk) 20:02, 28 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:Pakarmy.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 ⚡  18:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

image is declared as a screen shot uploader is not the copyright holder of tv images MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

it's a broadcast of a public event ...one of those lovely riddles of IP law. who would own this? the broadcaster? the person or organization that recorded the event? or the army/gov't (& citizens?) of pakistan, that staged it (as a public display, one assumes) ? Lx 121 (talk) 18:45, 28 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:GeeXboX-Screenshot.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 ⚡  18:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot contains a scene from a movie, watermarked with the software it is supposed to show. Miami33139 (talk) 22:45, 20 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.