Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 January 27



File:Dance-salsa-innsbruck.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)

No Derivative Works licence on the image and flickr page - not a free licence Peripitus (Talk) 05:02, 27 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:Casino-california-sidney-weaverling.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)

Image page notes "Strictly for non-commercial use" - not a free image Peripitus (Talk) 05:03, 27 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:Performance-salsa-colombia.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)

Image page notes "Noncommercial-No Derivative Works " - not a free image Peripitus (Talk) 05:03, 27 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:Horikita Maki.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)

Linked to a website with the image page claiming a free licence. There is nothing on the linked webpage backing this up and, as an uploads site, it seems unlikely that the webmaster owns the image - appears to be a commercial (c) image Peripitus (Talk) 05:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the bottom of the source. It says "Creative Commons - Some Rights Reserved". Go look for it. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct - I've striken that bit. There is still the issue that this appears to be a user upload site and there is no source for what looks like a professional image. There is no proof that the owner of the image (not the website hosting it) has released the image under a CC licence - Peripitus (Talk) 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what confuses me. How does one justify something as CC? For example, if I were to browse a Flickr page, if it says CC it is CC, and if it is copyright then it is copyright. What is and isn't justification of licensing? Who makes the judgement? I personally thought that if I were to see the CC logo associated with a piece of work, then one would assume that it is CC. Kindest Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 03:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Flickr is a problematic site. Many uploads there are copyright violations and the licences have to be viewed with some cynicism. Where images are : Of professional quality, web resolution, are of a celebrity and have no exif information they should usually be regarded with some suspicion. In this case the image has no attribution or notes about where it came from. It's from a site replete with obviously copyrighted images that users have uploaded. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete have to agree with the nom here, seems highly unlikely that the owner of this site own any of the images hosted there. The domain is registered to some guy in Bangalore, India. I guess someone could drop him and e-mail or give him a call (just do a whois lookup on the domain to find the info) to verify, but looks like some random "fansite" that just happen to have a Creative Comons notice slapped on. Probably the default in the skin he use or something. --Sherool (talk) 16:54, 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:Muhammadcalli.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. 

The result of the debate was: Wrong forum. The image is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User lists file as his own work, though highly unlikely. Phootoos (talk) 09:56, 27 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:Ismailcalli.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. 

The result of the debate was: Wrong forum. The image is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User lists file as his own work, though highly unlikely. Phootoos (talk) 09:56, 27 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:Auerbach_in_CBS_control_rm_1950s.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)

The only source info is that it's a "CBS publicity photo", it's also claimed to have no copyright and be owned by the subject of the article (presumably Larry Auerbach). Somehwat unclear how the uploader came to these conclutions. Only possible expalantion I can think of is if the photo was published without a copyright notice while they where still required or some such, but the info is rater sketchy. Sherool (talk) 13:04, 27 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.