Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 January 25



File:Fricke and DFV 78 in 1903.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 ⚡  21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Propably an expiered copyright, given its from 1903, but I'm not certain now, should better be deleted after all. Uploaded by myself, not used in any article, was meant for the Ferdinand-Wilhelm Fricke article. EA210269 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Was it published in 1903? If so, it's fine. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 26 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:OJL-Rgts Pk 08.2007.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 ⚡  02:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Listed as CC-by-3.0 but is linked to a flickr image with (c) all-rights reserved Peripitus (Talk) 08:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the copyright licence on my flickr site now, so presume all is fine now. --Dsie17 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsie17 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 22:19, 9 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:Succubus.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 ⚡  19:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Listed as public domain, but is from World of Warcraft and is possibly non-free. --All N Ever (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedied as obvious copyvio. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 26 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:LIC Coat of Arms.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 ⚡  02:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploader stated that image is released under Creative Commons. A website (www.astorialic.org) is cited as the source, but that website does not say that images on the site are released under CC. Anyway, this particular image is not found on the website; a similar image is at http://www.astorialic.org/topics/coatofarms_p.php. That page indicates that the coat of arms was created in 1873, which suggests that the image could be PD-US or PD-OLD (but not Creative Commons). This particular version may or may not be free. Orlady (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This image of the Long Island City Coat of Arms is the official coat of arms from 1873, from the collection of the Greater Astoria Historical Society. This exact image does not currently appear on their website, which is under construction. But this is a b/w version of the image that appears at http://www.astorialic.org/topics/coatofarms_p.php. The GAHS has released this image, so should it be PD-US or PD-OLD? Thanks, Winged Fist (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If this particular image was published in 1873 (or any time before 1923), it's in the public domain and there's no need for further discussion (but the image would still need an accurate license template -- see Template:PD-US and Template:PD-old for details). If, on the other hand, the Astoria Historical Society has a valid claim to a copyright on the image (for example, if the artwork in this particular image was done by a club member in 1943 and published under copyright), then I believe that Wikipedia would need some sort of affidavit that it has been released under a Creative Commons license (but note that I'm not well informed on copyright law or on that procedure). If the image is newer than 1923, it still might be OK to use in the Long Island City article under "fair use", but other uses would be restricted. --Orlady (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On my talk page, Winged Fist wrote:
 * Orlady, As far as I know, the LIC coat of arms is a faithful reproduction of the original 1873 version. The Greater Astoria Historical Society is happy to release this image (which may be available elsewhere) for use on wikipedia, but would not be very happy to see it appear on the streets of Queens as a t-shirt, for instance. This is why the image is a relatively low resolution. What would be the proper tag for this? ThanksWinged Fist (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the organization asserts ownership of the image. I'm no expert on image licenses, but it sounds like this is needs to be treated as a fair-use image. I think Template:Non-free with permission might be appropriate the proper license for that image, but Winged Fist would benefit from the advice of a genuine image maven. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 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.