Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 20



File:Supportdenmark1.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 as F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Supportdenmark1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Unless there is a clear notice on the website (that I cannot currently reach) it cannot be considered in the public domain, and thus it cannot be used in Wikipedia (especially in the "user" namespace). OsamaK 10:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Websites too often come and go. The license may have been completely valid. It is sourced from a very minimal amount of original material (the fluttering fabric). The rest is merely text and applies. We could easily revamp/replace this image instead of deleting it altogether. In short, it just needs an update.  — BQZip01 —  talk 00:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * New version here: File:Denmark.jpg. And I botched the upload (stupid automatic scripts changing WP file names to match the uploading file names), so if an admin could restore the original photo and replace the contested image with this one, I'd appreciate it. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:18, 23 February 2010 (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:Launchpad-homepage.07.06.16.png

 * 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 ⚡  02:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Launchpad-homepage.07.06.16.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Screenshot of a website. Likely copyrighted.  No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Launchpad is a free software-based service. Its code is published under the terms of AGPL. The contents are, generally, licensed under CC-BY 3.0. I think it's free.--OsamaK 10:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and change license per OsamaK's rationale. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:58, 22 February 2010 (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:PROVOST.gif

 * 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 ⚡  04:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * File:PROVOST.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

Croww Copyright for Public Records Office documents is public domain as you are allowed to copy and reproduce papers and photographs once they have been released under the 30 year rule. This was a 1962 document and this makes it 48 years old. There should be no contention on this. Wiki is a non-profit enterprise so is covered by National Archives allowance for such use - which you would see if you read the page you references. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This file is apparently downloaded from The UK National Archives, which asserts Crown Copyright here. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * MMMM, I don't believe that this is correct:
 * The Crown. The Crown owns copyright:
 * 3.5.1 in any work made by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a government department before 1 August 1989, and in a work made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his or her duties on or after 1 August 1989;
 * 3.5.2 in any work commissioned by the Crown or a government department and completed before 1 August 1989. The Crown does not own copyright in a work commissioned before, but not completed by, 1 August 1989, nor in a work both commissioned and completed on or after that date, unless the author (or his employer, whichever is appropriate) has specifically assigned copyright to the Crown;
 * 3.5.3 in any work first published under the direction and control of Her Majesty or a government department before 1 August 1989, even if Crown copyright would not otherwise subsist in the work. In the case of a work so published on or after 1 August 1989, however, copyright will be owned by the author (or his employer, whichever is appropriate) unless copyright has been specifically assigned to the Crown.
 * 3.5.4 The Crown therefore owns the copyright in works:
 * • of any date made by, for example, civil servants, diplomats, serving members of the armed forces, most law court officials, members of the royal household, and government ministers when acting in that capacity (but not, for instance, in their party political, constituency or parliamentary capacities). These will include records in TNA such as letters and reports written by such individuals, census returns, records of service in the armed forces, transportation records, war diaries and operations record books, and Cabinet minutes;
 * • commissioned by the Crown and created before 1 August 1989, such as tithe maps made for the Tithe Commissioners; and
 * • created before 1 August 1989 by officers and members of government advisory bodies and royal commissions, and other bodies whose work was controlled by the Crown.


 * Jezhotwells (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Further the notice here states specifically:
 * The use of copies of records 				  downloaded from DocumentsOnline is subject to the following conditions. Digital 				  copies of documents on DocumentsOnline may be used only for:
 * Private study or research for a non-commercial purpose
 * Education: copies may be used, and further copies of those copies may              be made, for education purposes in the course of instruction or examination,               or of preparation for instruction or examination by a person giving or receiving               the instruction or preparing or taking the examination
 * Applications for permission for any other use should be addressed 				 to the image library. For 				  further information on Crown copyright policy and licensing arrangements, see the 				  guidance featured on Office of Public Sector information  (OPSI) website at www.opsi.gov.uk, consult our  full copyright guidelines (PDF, 157kb) or our copyright guidelines summary. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok leave it with me I will have a word with them and get clearance. Its interesting that books and magazines have not bothered in the past but Wiki free non-profit needs to. Sure, i will get permission. Thanks for pointing this out. Truthseekers666 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

user Milbounre one to answer your points, Wiki is not commercial as its "commerce" is non-profit. The documents value is your opinion. I would argue it value based on the following, the national archive is flooded with requests for UFO documents as are the MOD. This is a Military Based UFO investigation and it is the very first document to list P&SS as involved with UFO reports. This is a landmark finding from the National Archives and is important enough to have filled a chapter of one of Nick Redferns books on UFOs because it is this important. Then embarrased by the document having given away a asecret the govt didnt want in the public domain this document was "lost" by the Public Records Office who denied knowing where it was, parliament were asked questions about its whereabouts and then it was admitted the National Archive lied in saying it had lost the document and it was with MOD all the time. This makes this page pretty damned important if you ask me. P&SS is just the tip of the MOD iceberg relating to UFOs and this is the document which has allowed a peek inside. I think that does have encyclopedic value. I hope this changes your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Image is not in the public domain as stated crown copyright is 50 years and not available for commercial use. It also appears to have no encyclopedic value. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but it is clearly under Crown Copyright. A valid FUR must be provided. If no valid FUR is provided, I recommend delete. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to dissapoint you or excite you... but I am getting clearance as we speak. I have already been in touch with Graham Pearson of National Archives who says it is ok to quote fully from documents as copyright is "wavied".  Repeat not subject to copyright restrictions. Very interesting for Wiki users. However to use a photocopy or photograph of a document does require clearance and I am now in touch with "Imaging Clearance" to gain this. I do not anticipate there will be a problem and all that will have to happen is a re-upload of the picture with Crown Copyright notices, but we shall see when they get back to me. If anyone wants to see the email I received from Graham Pearson to confirm this I am happy to send over. Truthseekers666 (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An OTRS verification would obviously be sufficient as well. The contents of the documents are certainly worth quoting, but seeing it for yourself is also valuable (i.e. It is one thing to talk about John Hancock's signature; it is quite another to see it).


 * Comment: If the document is a public record then all that is needed is to provide a citation (and if needed a quotation) for it we have really no need to have an image of the actual document and I would think that it is likely to be a candidate for deletion on these grounds, permission or not. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why so determined to delete Milbourne. Friends with ALR? You came on the scene when ALR was trying desperately to get these docs removed and you seek the same. A bit suspicious isnt it??? No sir, the document is uploaded to Wiki and if of no harm to you if it stays. Wiki wants people to upload pictures and indeed this page only has one photograph. Why upload pictures... why upload maps? Well if we didnt users of Wiki could just go out to the National Archives at £40 train rticket and spend a whole day pulling out of the Archives. Now you see why? The reason we upload things like this is to save people the trouble. Yes we could quote from it but its much nicer to see the whole document in its entirety seeing as it is so important. One page of UFO documentation out of perhaps 200,000 isnt harming you is it, or is it? One could draw a parallel to the Magna Carta, why show photographs of it on Wiki, why not just type text. The reason is simple people do want to see and feel the essense of how a docuement is formatted and how things used to look in the past. Seeing an actual UFO report from the military in its SECRET stamped glory does help to increase its authenticity and brings the viewer closer to facts. Truthseekers666 (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * User Milbourneone deleted the "photo only" link to a different picture scan. This link was repeatedly deleted by user:ALR then ALR stopped doing it and user:Milbourneone deleted it. I get the feeling this is now a two pronged attack against my trying to post this information using every method possible. Two military users, both keen to keep the UFO angle off the military sites. I now have a WP:CIVIL warning from Milbourne too. How soon before I am banned so ALR and Milbourne can get rid of the links for good? Truthseekers666 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:THEREISNOCABAL. TS, there is nothing sinister in their motives, they are simply following procedure and the rules we have set down for images. If everything you say is true, the image will be kept and a specific license may change. If the license changes and it is NOT free, all you need to do is add an appropriate Fair Use Rationale. Most of the deletes are simply because no FUR exists. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to note out of interest I came to this image following Truthseekers666s request at Editor assistance/Requests as an uninvolved admin with an interest in military articles and images. So I am a bit unsure why that user is now attacking my motives (and questioning my image uploads) when he requested advice and help. I am also unclear why Truthseekers666 is now claiming on my talk page that he wrote the letter in the image which is clearly a conflict of interest, I had presumed the letter had been written by Sgt Scott or somebody on the P&SS staff. Just to add my only edits to the related articles was to add new information on RAF units and I have not removed or otherwise any images or image link from that article. As User:Truthseekers666 is now making personal attacks on opposes to this image I have no more commentMilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as copyrighted and there is no valid FUR at present. Verbal chat  16:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK DELETE The National Archive said I would have to pay £40 fee to use the document on webpage - this is the rule for all their documents then. Worth noting. Quite expensive and even though I explained Wii is non profit as are my volunteer motives this did not sway them. I might have paid the £40 to use the document were it not for the fact that Wiki editors will not accept it due to WP:Primary reasons. However as explained before for future ref one is free to quote the document as text and does not have to pay. You are free to delete these scans. To user Milborneone, you should look at your own user page with a critical eye as it contains a personal pictures "Gallery" which you designed, which is not what I think Wiki is for. You have included pictures from the zoo with bird pictures titled "unclassified". These are of little user to Wikipedia and hardly encylopedic. I would ask you to think about which pictures are of no benefit and should be deleted. Pictures like this probably belong on your personal website or flicker/photobucket webpages. Truthseekers666 (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that you have been warned before about harrasing editors who disagree with you, just to comment that wikipedia requires images be available for commercial use and I suspect even after you have paid it would not include a release for commercial purposes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have also reported File:GOVTDO3.gif at . Jezhotwells (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Generally, regardless of copyright, documents like this shouldn't be on en.wiki, they should be on Wikisource, where they can be transcribed and read without squinting. Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, close to unreadable, copyright, and the chances of HM Government releasing crown copyright material into the public domain are roughly zero. As an aside, the use of this seems to be on, if not over, the margins of WP:NOR, which would limit the likelihood of an acceptable FUR; also our fair use policy requires low resolution would would render it entirely (rather than almost) unreadable. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 28 February 2010 (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.