Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 20



File:Seal of the Prime Minister of Thailand.svg

 * 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 ⚡  16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The image has a non-free rationale and a public domain license tag. I could not verify that the image is in the public domain from the source cited, or from Thailand's Prime Minister's website. Rockfang (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:30, 20 June 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:Childresscard.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 ⚡  19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As a commercially distributed card by Topps, the copyright holder, this derivative work is covered by the same copyright. Topps, not the uploader, would be the only party with standing under U.S. copyright law to release it to the Public Domain. This certainly is an unfree image and the PD-self license is inapplicable.  JGHowes   talk  03:36, 20 June 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:RMITGraduationParade2006.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 ⚡  19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The image is restrictive as stated "RMIT University reserves the right to withdraw permission to use these images to any user if their use is considered inappropriate. Images may not be used in association with material that RMIT considers defamatory or damaging to the reputation of RMIT University.''

Which means the license it images is uploaded is not correct and RMIT doesn't state any licensing. Bidgee (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, although moral rights are okay, non-perpetual licenses are non-free. ViperSnake151 Talk  16:24, 20 June 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:RMITBuilding200.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 ⚡  19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The image is restrictive as stated "RMIT University reserves the right to withdraw permission to use these images to any user if their use is considered inappropriate. Images may not be used in association with material that RMIT considers defamatory or damaging to the reputation of RMIT University.''

Which means the license it images is uploaded is not correct and RMIT doesn't state any licensing. Bidgee (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, although moral rights are okay, non-perpetual licenses are non-free. ViperSnake151 Talk  16:24, 20 June 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:Street Art Union Lane Melbourne.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 discussion was: Keep, rough consensus, per Peripitus' last word. -Andrew c [talk] 00:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlike illegal graffiti which isn't covered by copyright legal graffiti/art work is/can be covered by copyright which would be held by the artists. Bidgee (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this covered by Freedom-of-panorama as it is permanently installed in a public place ? Australian copyright law does not restrict images of permanently installed such things ? - Peripitus (Talk) 13:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FoP in Australia doesn't include 2D works (photos, legal graffiti ect) of art even if it's in an open space. I have a photo of a copyrighted (infact it even has the copyright simple) but due to the law I can't upload it. Bidgee (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is on a building though, which is one of the allowable subjects under Australian freedom of panorama. On a side note, I believe that even illegal graffiti is covered under copyright. The legality of creation does not influence if something is copyrighted. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * and this PDF from the Australian Copyright Council tells me that 2-d works are not treated differently from buildings. And section 65 of the copyright law is fairly clear - this photo is not covered by copyright and the licence is ok - Peripitus (Talk) 23:09, 20 June 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:PTR 91.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 ⚡  06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of permission.Ecosse99 (talk) 08:24, 20 June 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:B1Rtiny.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 ⚡  06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No source and no evidence that copyright holder has released this.Ecosse99 (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Tagged with Di-no source--Rockfang (talk) 20:19, 20 June 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:Peacock Throne.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 ⚡  19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The image was uploaded from http://www.angelfire.com/empire/imperialiran/golestan.html. The respective link can be found in history of file. Respective question about file status to uploader was ignored Alex Spade (talk) 12:14, 20 June 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:Gunadasaamarasekera.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 ⚡  21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Listed as PD-US-govt and linked to such a site but there is nothing on that site that tells where the image came from or what the copyright of it is. Just because it is on a US govt website does not mean that the image is theirs. Peripitus (Talk) 13:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the image was grabbed from the Library of Congress]. But according to the LOC legal page if the licensing of any particular asset is such that if it is shareable in some way then it is specifically mentioned on that page. This is nothing with regard to rights to copy or duplicate this image. So it pretty much looks like there is no such permission for anything on this page. This in effect makes this image a copyvio. -- Web H amster  13:58, 20 June 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:Diam1.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. 

Sourced to a journal article, but license tag says it's public domain. Shubinator (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

See discussion on my talk page. Author affiliation and credit make clear US government applicability.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also mention, as per talk page, that the actual source is, or was prior to new editor arriving I haven't checked last few edits, the AIP site as per their own copyright policies.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I updated tag info, and can someone speedy delete the prior versions. There is an unsourced image of little value, a blank image, and a puppy picture. Thanks.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I obviously do no disagree, but in fact of course the photo is just as easily produced in other places.Sure, most of them would be other US labs but still... The AIP, being reliable, can be presumed to have checked the affiliation and the claimed affiliation is reliable for at least presuming the authors are for real and accurately attributed the work. I guess I could copy email to OTRS or whoever but I really didn't want to bother authors or publisher any more.
 * Weak keep. I read the discussion at User talk:Nerdseeksblonde, and this is a tricky case. This photograph was definitely created at a naval research lab, by government employees, funded by the U.S. government. I believe the photograph is PD as a U.S. government work. I'm not at all sure about the text, which could have been crafted in a number of circumstances... but the photos could only have been made at the lab, "on the clock" as it were. I can't be 100% sure that it's PD, but I'd say I'm 95% confident, and isn't that a good enough confidence interval (for state work)? – Quadell (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Comment : The Lab is the only place with an SEM or Photoshop?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

An email with documentation was sent by someone to wiki address suggested on my talk page. Do they just handle the approval or delete since I would think the vote here would then be irrelevant?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OTRS does not participate in discussions. They verify that the correspondence is from someone representing the licenseholder (or, in this case, a party that might be a licenseholder) and the party either releases the file under the license given, or the party says it doesn't hold the copyright. Shubinator (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So how do "they" stop this discussion which becomes irrelevant in light of whatever email they got? Anyone who doesn't know better can still delete it.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If OTRS thinks the email shows that the license on the image is correct, the OTRS user will tag the file with (see File:Flathead Lake.jpeg for an example). Only administrators can delete content from Wikipedia, and an admin won't delete the image based on license concerns if the tag is present. OTRS, in my experience, is quite fast and usually acts on emails within a day, often within hours. Shubinator (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS has confirmed permission, so this is withdrawn. Shubinator (talk) 00:18, 1 July 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:Barbara-bush.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 ⚡  19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No evidence that Photographer died >70yrs ago feydey (talk) 13:59, 20 June 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:RichardGutierrez.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 ⚡  16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can be found all over the internet, needs probably verification thru OTRS, used here: http://www.news.nfo.ph/entertainment/entertainment-headlines/richard-gutierrez-unfazed-by-the-intrigues/ feydey (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The uploader has been blocked twice for his lack of honoring our copyright policies. The image was taken with a pro camera per exif data. The uploader claims "I created this work entirely by myself.". Based on history of uploader, evidence of image being taken by a pro, improbability that a pro would not be aware of what copyright is and would release his work product for free this image is an obvious and blatant copyright violation. See Special:DeletedContributions/Dico_Calingal, for more background. --NrDg 15:08, 20 June 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:Wighnomys2.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 ⚡  19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a DVD screencap. feydey (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The image currently has no license.--Rockfang (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy WP:CSD Uploader has blanked the image's page.--Rockfang (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The uploader is ok with this file being deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 04:47, 21 June 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.