Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 4



File:Picture2.gif
Presumably a copyrighted logo. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Mount_Rushmore2.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an images derived from a copyrighted 3D piece of artwork, located in the US Fasach Nua (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1 - it's on Commons, not an issue for here. 2 - it's a work of the US government, and therefore in the public domain. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ok the file is on Commons, but to potentially save me a trip there, was the construction of the Mount Rushmore under the US Federal Government, and did they get the copyright from the architect? Fasach Nua (talk) 16:47, 4 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:Mt_rushmore_07_27_2005.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. 

This looks like an images derived from a copyrighted 3D piece of artwork, located in the US, I am not sure as to who owns the copyright of the sculpture Fasach Nua (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same as above, the image is on Commons, and the photograph was released into the public domain. Additionally, this is a malformed nom - the nominator did not notify the uploader or tag instances of this image, as required by the template there. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the nominator may be technically correct, the image is on Commons and thus out of our purview here. I also feel certain that if someone were to try and enforce copyright on Mt. Rushmore (which incontestably enters the public domain in a couple years anyway), it is so central to the national identity that it would probably attract an act of Congress to declare that it was in the public domain. PD per all above and also PD-US-no notice. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we know there wasnt (c) in the designs or elsewhere? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There would need to be evidence that the plans were published before the statue was completed and that there was in fact a copyright notice on the plans. I know of no evidence to suggest either thing. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:35, 7 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.


 * 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. 

File:Emre Belozoglu.jpg
Appears to be a screenshot; if so, uploader would not be the &copy; holder. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly from bbc.co.uk. Requested CSD F9. -- aktsu (t / c) 14:39, 5 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:M 69292f712b3a403583bce42f9b735228-1.jpg
Looks like a publicity shot, low resolution. I suspect this image has been taken from elsewhere without permission. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ral Partha miniature.jpg
Claimed to be PD by User:Thunk, however, User:DreamGuy states  painting is copyright by "Thunk" but original model is by Ral Partha and we don't have their permission and license is bogus -- he doesn't have copyright to figure, so photo of it infringes copyright of people who made the figure. Radiant chains (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a double transformation here - the act of painting and then of photography. This makes the work a separate creative one.  It does not infringe the original holder, who sells raw, unpainted figures, and it provides an added benefit to the public per case law. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good lord. If you don't know anything about copyright law you shouldn't weigh in on such matters. DreamGuy (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know something of it, having worked in the field. Note also that User:Thunk is a law professor. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Both claims are highly dubious, unproven, and ultimately irrelevant to this discussion anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The person who took the photo has copyright to his painting and the photo but not the original element, which is still under copyright. The painting and the photo do not replace the original artwork of the figure; both are highly derivative and could not exist without the original, copyrighted object. Clear and obvious copyvio. DreamGuy (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the original element here - we are talking about the photograph. This is clearly and obviously not the same. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh... and the photograph infringes the original. It gets tiring to see your name pop up all over Wikipedia trying to argue against most anything I say just out of sheer contrariness. Please stop the wikihounding. DreamGuy (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, derivative image of a copyrighted sculpture. – Quadell (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:A BorisA Berlin1948.jpg
Source site indicates copyright. I didn't speedy, though, as I'm not sure what the actual source of the image is, and thus whether it is eligible for copyright in the first place. Uploader's justification of "too small for commercial use" is, at any rate, insufficient. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hi. Thanks for letting me know there's a problem. As I understand it, Soviet photos taken before 1951 were exempt from copyright, and that as the position is currently unclear on that, the cert that I gave it (which contains reservations) is OK. The copyright at the foot of the source page shouldn't affect it, although it appears to have expired in 2007. The historical content of the photo (the recognisable ruined cathedral in the Gendarmenmarkt plus the concert with Boris conducting) shows time and place: it's a Soviet photo in the Soviet Zone before 1951. I think it's important to be able to show this photo, as it helps to demonstrate that everyone was working together for peace at that time and place. I believe that some people may have put their careers on the line for trying too hard (Russians singing in German) at the concert, and am currently evaluating evidence. If there's still a problem, please let me know. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh man, this is a complicated situation. Storye book has provided a lot of details, and that's great; we know when and where the photo was created. But we don't know who the photographer was -- was it a German national, a Russian national, or someone from somewhere else? When did the photographer die? Was the photo created by a corporation, or perhaps an official government entity? And where was the photo first published? Germany? Russia? Again, we don't know.
 * The situation of USSR copyright laws are territorial, meaning works first published in Russia follow Russian law, works first published in Ukraine follow Ukrainian law, etc. The current German republic is the successor state to East Germany, and Germany retroactively protects copyright for 70 years after the author's death. (This was also true in 1996, when the URAA retroactive copyright situation kicked in, so the U.S. respect this.) If this photo was first published in Germany by a German national, it is definitely still under copyright.
 * What if it was first published in Russia by a Russian national? Well, Russia would currently consider it copyrighted, since a 2008 law restored copyright to all works by authors who died after 1942 or so. But this wasn't the law in 1996, when the URAA situation went into effect. The U.S. considers a foreign work to be PD if its country of origin considered it to be PD in 1996. Russian copyright law at the time considered a work PD only if it was published before 1954 and if the photographer died before 1954 (or before 1950 if the photographer died in WWII). We don't know when the photographer died, but it's reasonable that he may have lived well beyond 1954.
 * And of course it's possible that the photograph was first published in Ukraine, or Poland, or somewhere else. We don't know. But the most likely situation is that the photograph is still copyrighted, and will remain so until 70 years or so after the author's death: probably some time between 2021 and 2060. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. All that said, we may still be able to use the image as a non-free photo under our policy. I'm not sure about that though. – Quadell (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Thank you for kindly going to so much trouble over this one. I guess now I'll just have to wait and see whether a decision is made. The trouble is: it's almost impossible to find out anything to order, about births, marriages and deaths in the USSR at that time, let alone about who took photos. I have been trying in vain to find out the fate of the young hero of that hour - Nikitin - who was a famous tenor, still mentioned today by Alexandrov Ensemble directors - yet he suddenly stops recording in 1951 at the approx. age of 33, and that's all we know. If we can't trace the fate of the much-loved and still-remembered Nikitin - what chance do we have of tracing a non-famous photographer who, if still alive, would be at least 80yrs old? My guess is that the photo was taken by a Russian member of the choir. This is because the other photograph (see image-link in article) shows all the photographers and reporters crowded at the sides of the stage, and there is no space for outsiders to get to the middle of the choir, between the choir and orchestra - which is where our photographer stood. I don't know if any of that helps, but it's the best I can do.--Storye book (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DawsonAngelChase.jpg
User had uploaded another image of "Tyrant" Eric Dawson which had been stolen from his Myspace. This image looks like it probably came from the same source, but on a cursory inspection I'm unable to verify that. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. 

File:FrancisKeough.jpg
Tagged. Description is "Painting of Francis Patrick Keough, former Archbishop of Baltimore." Francis Patrick Keough died in 1961. It seems unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder of this painting, and more likely that this low-resolution image was simply found on the Internet somewhere. —Bkell (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Copied from here. Requested CSD F9. -- aktsu (t / c) 14:42, 5 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:Tamanna.jpg
Uploader may not be copyright holder. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fasach Nua (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a mirror of the article also displaying the image hosted here. -- aktsu (t / c) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That one is, but TinEye finds the image on lots of sites that aren't mirrors. – Quadell (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Territorial support group organisational chart.jpg
Listed earlier but appears to have been lost in the backlog? Original request here: but no resolution (in either direction) yet. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots like a derived work of a non-free diagram to me Fasach Nua (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This was previously listed at Possibly unfree files/2009 April 18, where it's still an open issue. – Quadell (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)