Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 October 9



File:Jimmy Seed.jpg
Unclear how we know that the author of the photo was never identified. 67.85.125.17 (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The rational written at the image description (public domain because >70 years old) is not satisfying. The author must be unknown and the uploader has to document all efforts he made to find out the author. Author unknown means that the author never disclosed his identity - yes, thats realy hard to prove but required. --Martin H. (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Bashir qureshi.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 ⚡  04:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

size & pixelation make it appear that this has been scanned from another source; no source provided Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:09, 9 October 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:Ahney Her.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 ⚡  04:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

no source, appears to be screenshot, no metadata Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See http://laovoices.com/2009/01/14/gran-torino-and-the-hmong-perspective/ as of January 2009, maybe not the exact soure but the image is a blatanat copyvio taken from a random website. Martin H. (talk) 15:24, 13 October 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:Manufacturating Resource Planning.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 ⚡  04:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It has not been made clear if the uploader has confirmed their status as the author of the original book this image was scanned from, or that permission has been granted from the publisher, John Wiley & Sons, for the content of a book under copyright to be waived. In this case the diagram could be fairly easily redrawn without needing to copy from a book and is therefore not essential or unique for the article in question. Ash (talk) 07:14, 9 October 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:NewDeal.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. — ξ xplicit  05:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not the "copyright holder of this work", I'm sorry. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The owner may wish to switch to a "fair use" tag, or find the original images and evidence of date of publication - if it can be proved that each of the images expire their copyright in the US, then the "PD exempt" tag can be used. However, simply by creating an image merging a collection of photographs does not make you the "copyright holder". --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The top two images are both found on Wikipedia (here and here) under the public domain. I couldn't find the lower image on Wikipedia, but it is a product of the WPA, and is therefore in the public domain per PD-USGov. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then someone should change the licence: "PD-exempt" (or something else) is fine, but "PD-self" would be incorrect. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They may have been making the argument that the arrangement of images itself could be construed as copyrighted (I myself think that it is too simple an arangement), and thus released it into the public domain. That is neither here nor there though. I will re-tag. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The final image is here. I'll remove the tag. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 01:05, 30 October 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:Aljazeeragazaday3.ogg

 * 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: Kept - licence confirmed as correct - Peripitus (Talk) 03:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AlJazzera Releases as CC-BY 3.0? Doubt it Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They did in fact release a number of clips under CC-BY-3.0, including this one. You could have verified that by clicking the link given in the image description (here) which clearly shows a CC-BY-3.0 license. More information here.  nableezy  - 14:42, 9 October 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:J24ragtime.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 ⚡ 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to come from the J-Boats web site (http://www.jboats.com/j24/) which asserts, © Copyright 2009, J/Boats, Inc. - All Rights Reserved. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 9 October 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:200px-noFCC-logo.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. — ξ xplicit  05:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Derivative work with no source information. --LarryGilbert (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Two notes of interest: (1) the uploader has a long history of uploading questionable images, almost all of which were ultimately removed; (2) the uploader apparently has not been active on Wikipedia since June 2007. --LarryGilbert (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * FCC is a federal government agency and thus this logo is in the public domain. A circle with crossbar is too simple for copyright protection. Therefore this image is in the public domain per PD-USGov and PD-ineligible. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:44, 9 October 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:Mike peters 07.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 ⚡  04:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Image using a Fair use rational and a free license. I assume that the image was not self created and that the Creative Commons license is invalid. Any fair use would also invalid as the person is still alive and we can make photographs. Also there are other Fair use images with wrong Creative Commons licenses in Mike Peters (musician). Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 9 October 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.