Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 January 16



File:Famous Ossetians.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 ⚡  13:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you can't release this composite image into public domain because it contains images available under GFDL/CC as well as some non-free images used under fair use. I don't know whether enwiki policy allows non-free images as parts of such composite illustrations at all, but PD definitely doesn't seem appropriate here. Dzordzm (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. The file was uploaded by a sockpuppet of a now banned editor. --Dzordzm (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Derivative of a non-free image is a copyright violation. It certainly can't be released as PD-SELF. Papa November (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Even making the derivative was a copyright violation, let alone using it. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:03, 28 January 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:PICT4156.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 ⚡  13:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No information on the copyright status of the bust itself. ViperSnake151 21:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No information beyond it linking to German_Resistance. We have no idea who this person is/was. Karanne (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The file links section states this file is identical to File:Graf_von_Stauffenberg_.jpg AndrewRT(Talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Has anyone notified the uploader? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg identifies the bust with this man. Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This guy lived 1907-1944 and he looks at least 20 at the time so it must have been created some time after 1927 - probably after 1944 when he became famous. According to this, it would only be PD if it was created before 1996 and not copyrighted by its creator. Any ideas how we can verify this? AndrewRT(Talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the two photos are original enough to qualify for originality? Since the photographer has placed them in the PD, they are free for anyone to use. Peterlewis (talk) 09:54, 29 January 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:Ubuntu OS X.png

 * 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. 

Keep. I'm going to close this one as keep, but acknowledge that there are still licensing issues. In fact, the GPL screenshot tag itself says Note: if the screenshot shows any work that is not a direct result of the program code itself, such as a text or graphics that are not part of the program, the license for that work must be indicated separately. So I'm tagging the image as needing new license tags and a fair use rationale. Please, to the users who wanted to keep this image, FIX the tags for this image, or else it WILL be deleted.-Andrew c [talk] 01:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you pick out all the non-free content in this picture? ViperSnake151 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. What non-free content? Blur the google and Digg logo? 66.31.196.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

Delete and replace with a screenshout of a gnome desktop using a free theme use a free messenger like Empathy a free browser etc...IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Oh come on. This image is 99% free software, not even Google would care if Google Talk is shown under a free image. Google Talk is also running under VirtualBox, which IS free software. Google Talk is ALSO free to use, I see no issue here. I prefer free software, but I don't try to seduce people into using it by eliminating all proprietary software from mention at all. カ  ラ  ム  05:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Screenshots are considered to be derivative works of software. Digg is non-free, the icons of Microsoft products on the dock are non-free, and Google Talk is non-free. The fact that its running on free software does not change the situation. ViperSnake151 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any Microsoft icons on the dock. The terminal icon looks somewhat reminiscent of the MS command prompt if it were not for the user prompt. Are you talking about the OpenOffice icons? There are plenty of Apple icons though, especially the apple logo in the top left corner which seems nobody has noticed yet. --71.230.83.232 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The ‘dock’ contains the icons of the Macintosh versions of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint (the W, X, and P); the compass at the far left is Apple's Safari, and the Calculator is Apple's as well. Even the web browser has some icons in its toolbar that look suspiciously like Safari's. This started off as free software, but it's been heavily customised using proprietary content. David Arthur (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, all the Macintosh icons and themes are MEANT to be there, as this IS an image of GNOME customised to look like Aqua. As for the digg logo, you people are telling me you want to remove 97% of all the logos off of Wikipedia because they do not constitute free imagery? And Google Talk, I'm going to agree with Stifle about keeping it as only incidental use of non-free content. カ  ラ  ム  12:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to keep this as only incidental use of non-free content, but would recommend blurring the copyrighted icons. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GCFreak2: As you say, this is an image depicting GNOME customised to look like Aqua. Therefore, the use of Aqua icons is not incidental to its purpose, and at the very least the GPL tag on the image is incorrect, since the portions of the image which differentiate it from standard GNOME are not released under the GPL. David Arthur (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Icons/screenshots are ok for educational use in most countries - I don't see a problem. However, blurring the image to avoid copyright problems leaves a mess.  Could a screenshot of a web browser on OSX, showing the dock and www.wikipedia.org, with Google talk (names blurred) be had? 81.159.79.45 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence why I said the licensing tag was incorrect, rather than saying the image should be deleted. The GPL screenshot template says that ‘if the screenshot shows any work that is not a direct result of the program code itself, such as a text or graphics that are not part of the program, the license for that work must be indicated separately’; the Apple and Microsoft icons (and the Apple desktop picture) clearly come under this category. There might be a fair-use case to make here, but they can’t be argued to be under the GPL. David Arthur (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel this should stay. Remove the offending icons, by reconfiguring the theme, as I feel this shows that Linux/X/GNOME happens to be very configurable. Does Apple or Microsoft care? The icons are not letting the compaines loose profits, as neither Microsoft or Apple produce the software in question for the Linux platform. Would they rather have the user use pirated software? I really must say that I think not! 66.31.196.133 (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)