Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 14



File:Cdn_firefight_taliban2.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: Deleted

File appears to be screen capture downloaded from Canadian Forces Combat Camera. The terms of these photos do not allow commercial reproduction without permission. It's highly doubtful that the Canadian forces would allow non-commisioned photographers to self-publish photos independently, much less actually let the photographers on the battlefield. soulscanner (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless it can actually be proved that it is downloaded from the Canadian Forces Combat Camera, it should NOT removed. It is also not commercial reproduction since the photo is not being sold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.147.216 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't accept images here that can't be used commercially. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 26 May 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:My father. My king.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: Deleted, OTRS notice insufficient.

Tagged as no source, the uploader re-tagged as PD-self. However, this is presented as the work of a professional artist. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied today to an OTRS communication (2009051710015187). Several issues need to be resolved before we can accept this licensing, but the matter may resolve soon if the writer is able to comply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 24 May 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:554235.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: Deleted. No evidence that this painting was published. If unpublished, copyright lasts 70 years pma.

The image carries a public domain license; however, it is a 1963 painting and does not appear to have been uploaded by the artist, calling the license into question. In response to a dispute over the license, the uploader replied "I own the painting". Tim Pierce (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could this be PD-Pre1978? Stifle (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There does not seem to be any evidence to suggest that it is. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a copyright notice on the painting? Stifle (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer that I would have to see the painting in person, and it is apparently in a private collection. In any case, I cannot take PD-Pre1978 seriously.  The link on the template directs me to the Copyright article for more information, but that article does not address the matter at all.  Moreover United States copyright law says "Prior to 1978, works had to be published or registered to receive copyright protection. Upon the effective date of the 1976 Act (January 1, 1978) this requirement was removed and these works received protection despite having not been published or registered."  I do not see any reason to believe that PD-Pre1978 applies to, well, anything. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * URAA restorations only apply to foreign works that entered the public domain in their country of origin after 1996. It never applied to domestic works. The restoration of copyright on public domain items has also been ruled unconstitutional in U.S. district court . IronGargoyle (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this is in the public domain per PD-Pre1978. See this discussion of the Chicago Picasso. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. It does help clarify what "publication" might mean in this case.  The reasoning in the Chicago Picasso case seems to suggest that it would require some kind of general exhibition before the public in which the owners do not attempt to restrict viewers from making copies or pictures of the work.  Do we have any reason to believe that took place with this work? Tim Pierce (talk) 23:36, 27 May 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:MRD_1991_Melissa_Vargas.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 ⚡  14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

as above – Quadell (talk) 16:51, 14 May 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:MRD_1992_Liza_González.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 ⚡  14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

as above – Quadell (talk) 16:51, 14 May 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:MRD_1993_Odalisse_Rodríguez.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 ⚡  14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

as above – Quadell (talk) 16:51, 14 May 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:DFRLego 003.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. 

Derivative work ViperSnake151 Talk  19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tough one. A normal Lego block wouldn't be copyrightable, but does this figure pass the threshold of originality? Stifle (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say that it is not a derivative work. It is composed of individual Lego units, and any creative work in its construction would be the work of the photographer. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a single minifig, constructed in the way in was designed and pictured on the box. – Quadell (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be tagged as a non-free derivative image. It could certainly be used in Minifigure and Lego Pirates, but not in userspace. – Quadell (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that it was constructed as displayed on the box? Even if it were, I still think this might be too simple for copyright. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming Lego box designs qualify for copyright protection, this would almost certainly not fail the "too simple" test in court. However, I don't know if they actually do qualify or not, unfortunately, so I don't have a good answer for this one. -- Hux (talk) 06:52, 13 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.