Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 February 22



File:Clark duke 2007 photoshoot.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 ⚡  03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Crop of the original of this image from a (c) website. Does not seem to be free Peripitus (Talk) 05:36, 22 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:Finance.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 ⚡  03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(a) Tsvangirai has previously uploaded many unfree images, this noted by Wizzy as unfree but not tagged. Probably CSD F3 and F9. (b) Orphaned. Babakathy (talk) 09:13, 22 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:Mugabesleeping.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 ⚡  03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(a) Tsvangirai has previously uploaded many unfree images, this is probably the case, although I have so far failed to find the original. Probably CSD F3 and F9. (b) Orphaned.Babakathy (talk) 09:18, 22 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:Mrprimeminister.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 ⚡  03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(a) Tsvangirai has previously uploaded many unfree images, this is probably the case, although I have so far failed to find the original. Probably CSD F3 and F9. (b) Orphaned. Babakathy (talk) 09:16, 22 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:Defenceminister.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 ⚡  03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(a) Tsvangirai has previously uploaded many unfree images, this is probably the case, although I have so far failed to find the original. Probably CSD F3 and F9. (b) Orphaned. Babakathy (talk) 09:19, 22 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:Nadine Coyle brits.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 ⚡  22:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a screenshot, user has uploaded similar pictures as their own work in the past. J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC) It's a camea phone shot from the front row --Daibh (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, using a few tools, some heuristics and my eyesight (shock) it seems that this is an PAL video still. Almost definite, ~70% average chance that it is over all three of these images. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  14:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If these were screencaps, I would have easily managed to created one for Sarah Harding and Kimberley Walsh from the same alleged footage. Almost definite is not 'definite'. Please describe the 'tools used' --Daibh (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, 70% is approaching definite. As for creating pictures for others, whilst you would have been able to, that would have made it very obvious. I cannot go about describing the tools used, as the tools (in part written by me) rely on other code which I am not permitted to describe in detail. Anything less vague would probably be risky (although not inherently forbidden), and I'm not going to risk it for something like this. If it was taken with a phone, it would almost certainly have metadata with it, which it does not. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  15:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is something fishy going on here. Unless you have a very long arm (or a camera phone on a tripod) you could never take such a direct photo of someone from the front row. Unless you can upload the original photo, unedited and with the camera phone metadata (in other words, the picture file direct from the camera without editing) then it's a delete from me.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 01:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete this is not original work at all. I deleted some images from this user, and found out they were copyright violations. This one, and the recent image uploads from are pretty dubious as it is. -- Kanonkas : Talk  14:49, 25 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:Nicola roberts brits 2009.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 ⚡  22:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a screenshot, user has uploaded other copyvios in the past. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a camea phone shot from the front row --Daibh (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, using a few tools, some heuristics and my eyesight (shock) it seems that this is an PAL video still. Almost definite, ~70% average chance that it is over all three of these images. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  14:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is something fishy going on here. Unless you have a very long arm (or a camera phone on a tripod) you could never take such a direct photo of someone from the front row. Unless you can upload the original photo, unedited and with the camera phone metadata (in other words, the picture file direct from the camera without editing) then it's a delete from me.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 01:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete this is not original work at all. I deleted some images from this user, and found out they were copyright violations. This one, and the recent image uploads from are pretty dubious as it is. -- Kanonkas : Talk  14:49, 25 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:Cheryl cole brits 2009.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 ⚡  22:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a screenshot, user has uploaded other copyvios in the past. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a camea phone shot from the front row --Daibh (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, using a few tools, some heuristics and my eyesight (shock) it seems that this is an PAL video still. Almost definite, ~70% average chance that it is over all three of these images. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  14:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neuro seems to have this nailed (and the other ones) - look at the shot angle. If this was a mobile shot from the front row the shot taker is sitting on top of a ladder - Peripitus (Talk) 20:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is something fishy going on here. Unless you have a very long arm (or a camera phone on a tripod) you could never take such a direct photo of someone from the front row. Unless you can upload the original photo, unedited and with the camera phone metadata (in other words, the picture file direct from the camera without editing) then it's a delete from me.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 01:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete this is not original work at all. I deleted some images from this user, and found out they were copyright violations. This one, and the recent image uploads from are pretty dubious as it is. -- Kanonkas : Talk  14:46, 25 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:Real crestds.png

 * 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 as F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The uploader initially uploaded it as a non-free image. He is nominating the article on Real Madrid football club on FAC. I do not trust his claims that this image is created by Igancio Rivera (born, 14 June 1869 - dead, 10 January 1909). The uploader's actions in the FACs have shown deceit, and unless proof from reliable sources are given, this author information and hence the license should not be trusted. Jappalang (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on here. This is an image that per the cited external website is a logo from 1902.  Were this a US logo and not a Spanish one, it would likely be in the public domain, for copyright purposes, as a work for hire by now.  Anyone know the rules for Spain?  Also, I found an information source for this logo, but I can't read Spanish.  Perhaps it helps: http://flickr.com/photos/78289576@N00/397984386 Crypticfirefly (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * as PD-US. Wikipedia only requires images to be free in the USA. (Commons requires freedom in both the USA and the home country.) Stifle (talk) 16:56, 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:Michaeleasley.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 ⚡  07:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a cropped version of http://triangleeducation.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/gov_mike_easley_hi_res.jpg. Uploader has not responded to repeated requests for clarification of the source and copyright status of several uploaded images. Frank |  talk  13:52, 22 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:Rickwarren.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. 

Deleted - as clear as it can be. I see that User talk:VirtualSteve has placed a firm and final note on the uploader's talk page. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User has in the past uploaded copyrighted photos and claimed ownership. Andrew c [talk] 16:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like this is a personal snapshot of Warren with another person cropped out of the shot, as the uploader says. It would be hard to claim that this is a commercial product or even a promotional photo, with those disembodied fingers crawling down his shoulder. Mike Doughney (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Mike. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  17:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone through and deleted countless other images from due to invalid ownership claims, just as Andrew c suspects here. However, I agree with Mike that there's insufficient evidence to support that hypothesis in this case. -- Zim Zala Bim  talk  20:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good gosh, just because I improperly uploaded a few pictures by mistake, now all my personal photos are being questioned, when they are clearly mine? Come on, this is ridiculous. Manutdglory (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I count at least a dozen images that you uploaded with an improper license, claiming you created them, that were ultimately deleted as copyright violations. And there's nothing in the image that indicates it is "clearly" yours, so a cautious approach is prudent, given how seriously we take copyright around here. -- Zim Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  01:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not upload the original image? Full resolution, full EXIF data. If you have access to that file, then it could help establish that you at least didn't grab this image from the web.-Andrew c [talk] 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Requesting that someone upload a picture of themselves (that's what you'd get without the cropping) to counter a claim that's supported by zero evidence seems pretty extreme. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone uploads a dozen images and lies about owning the images and are found to have violated others copyrights, to me, that person has lost my trust. If you want to offer your trust, in spite of this, that's fine, but don't say there is zero evidence. There comes a point when someone has abused images too much, where we can no longer take them at their word. If we could do a google image search and find copyvios for 12 our of 13 images, but we couldn't find the last image, we are to assume that the user was lying only the first 12 times? If someone says "I created this work entirely by myself." and claims authorship to copyrighted works and is found to have flat out lied a dozen times over, those words "I created this work entirely by myself" have lost all meaning when coming from this users mouth. Images at web resolution, with no EXIF data stink of coming from... the web, as does this users image abuse history. It is the DUCK test for me (and after considering this, I have gone through this user's uploads and found EVEN MORE copyvios).-Andrew c [talk] 03:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am quite aware of a number of issues with respect to this user, and I was involved in pointing one of their previous uploads that was an obvious copyvio. Unfortunately, like a lot of so-called policies around here, it's been clearly demonstrated that your concern over copyright has no real teeth in it. Here we have a user that has uploaded a long series of images and lied about them, and as far as I know has suffered no penalty for it whatsoever. I would think that if copyright was really such a big concern (say, as big a concern as some people say they  have about "personal attacks"), they would have been blocked for that offense for a significant amount of time (weeks to months). But no, instead, unsubstantiated objections are raised to a user's subsequent upload that is quite obviously a personal snapshot, clearly unlike the previous offenses. I am being very specific; your objections to this particular image are unsubstantiatable. While the user's past behavior, which I think has never been adequately addressed, is reason to take a careful look at their subsequent uploads, the raising of spurious objections should not substitute for actual penalties. Mike Doughney (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, no one is questioning whether the photo is "quite obviously a personal snapshot". The concern is whether the photo is his personal snapshot. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  14:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And, I never blocked (or suggested a block) for him because his problematic uploads were in the past, and I worked with him to identify other problems. There weren't any new bad uploads (that I could determine) after the issue was pointed out to him. Only that kind of action - in the face of education about policy and warnings - would be a blockable offense. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  14:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If that (whether it's his personal snapshot) is a concern, then how might it be addressed in some substantive way rather than these theatrics? I'd suggest one thing that would have real teeth in it: have this user be perpetually disallowed from uploading images, clearly based on their past behavior. Anything else without real penalties is just posturing. Mike Doughney (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that above, I agree with your initial assessment that there is little evidence to support the hypothesis presented by Andrew c, but I can understand why he is concerned. And as he's suggested, posting the image with EXIF included might help resolve his concern. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or at least a larger version, not at web resolution, if privacy is a concern regarding the crop.... -Andrew c [talk] 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More pointless posturing. Any edit to the image loses the EXIF data, which could be faked anyway. I'm still sitting here stunned that on matters like this - which really might expose Wikipedia to liability - there seems to be an obvious paralysis with regard to policy enforcement. Anyone who attempts to upload an image is clearly warned not to upload things they stole off some other website (or even off the Commons and claimed as their own). That you won't block someone who did so many times - and who won't come clean about previous uploads when asked since it's alleged past copyvios are still being found - shows the policy and its enforcement are completely toothless. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How about collecting some data to support the idea of a block and presenting it at one of the WP:ANI pages? I am not an image expert, and I think most users and admins are not, so it's not as easy to clearly see when it's appropriate to block for bad image work. I'd be willing to do it, however, if the evidence supports it. I suspect other admins would as well. And if I (and others) learn more about image uploading and copyright along the way, that's all to the better, as far as I'm concerned. Frank |  talk  18:32, 24 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.