Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 July 20



File:AdrianaTarud.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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Apparently a professional shot, no EXIF data. Many of uploader's files already deleted speedily as blatant copyright violations. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 20 July 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:Asin.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 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Looks like it is owned by kollywood.com Eeekster (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably the earliest upload is OK? Others should be deleted I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:51, 20 July 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:Shoaib mansoor.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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Licensing is contradictory. The summary claims fair use, the licence claims it is not. The source has a copyright claim, meaning it would be fair use, but does not meet fair use criteria since the person is alive. O Fenian (talk) 08:45, 20 July 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:KurtEisner.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 discussion was: Keep. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 09:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:KurtEisner.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Was nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, which seemed inappropriate to me. Brought here for discussion. Rationale was "photo by Germaine Krull, not PD until 2056". May, however, be PD in the USA due to pre-1923 publication. Or maybe not. No evidence either way unless you know different. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the photo was by Germaine Krull, then the statement that it's not PD is correct for Germany at least, so it at least can't be moved to commons. As far as the US (and Wikipedia) goes, we don't assume anything about publishing so with a lack of evidence it has to be considered non-free (although using it as a non-free image is certainly possible since a new free image clearly can't be taken). VernoWhitney (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here is one of provenance. If the uploader can't confirm the source (and hence confirm where it was published before 1923) then why not look around for other similar images? I used Google images and this source looks promising. There are other possibilities as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Eisner was killed in 1919, It is highly unlikely that this photo was published long after that date, almost certainly before 1923. Safe in the USA, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 5 August 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:RFUEA simple 1953.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 discussion was: keep. This venue is for files licensed freely with disputed sourcing or licensing information. Files for deletion is that way. — ξ xplicit  03:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:RFUEA simple 1953.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Not in use WP:FU image and better served by File:RFUEA Badge.png Gnevin (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2010 (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 ⚡ 16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This image serves to illustrate that the governing body of rugby in East Africa survived the political upheavals that surrounded the move to independence of the three East African countries - Kenya, Tanganyika (Tanzania) and Uganda - almost entirely unaffected.  The only notable change was the replacement of the word Tanganyika with Tanzania.  This is referred to in the article text. Please also see the discussion below on File:RFUEA simple 1964.png for more information.
 * 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:RFUEA simple 1964.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 discussion was: keep. This venue is for files licensed freely with disputed sourcing or licensing information. Files for deletion is that way. — ξ xplicit  03:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:RFUEA simple 1964.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Not in use WP:FU image and better served by File:RFUEA Badge.png Gnevin (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2010 (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 ⚡ 16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Please see the related discussion above concerning File:RFUEA simple 1953.png. This logo, as is stated in the article, is the logo of the Rugby Football Union of East Africa.  Unlike most western nations where, for example the RFU has the same logo as the England national rugby union team, this logo is not the same as the shirt patch for the East Africa rugby union team.  To believe that African nations rugby unions should be run in exactly the same way as western nations is incorrect and ethnocentric.
 * 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:MoussaAmru.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 G5 by AnomieBOT ⚡  16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * I can't find any such OTRS request, and the uploader has a long history of (at best) misunderstanding image copyright. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:54, 20 July 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:AFC Asian Cup.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 G5 by AnomieBOT ⚡  22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * File:AFC Asian Cup.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Appears professional, no metadata, extremely problematic uploader. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:55, 20 July 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:DSCN0299.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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:DSCN0299.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader doesn't make it clear whether he is claiming public domain for his photograph or for what it depicts. If he created the micrograph shown, that should be made clear, otherwise the PD should be clarified through OTRS. Rodhull  andemu  21:13, 20 July 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:Château de Cheverny Straight On.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 discussion was: withdrawn. My mistake, I'm an idiot. Moving along... — ξ xplicit  03:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Château de Cheverny Straight On.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

-I do not understand this, there are other photos of Château de Cheverny up, or for that matter the Eiffle tower or any number of structures in France and they do not violate this law? How does this one in particular? AndrewHorne (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No freedom of panorama in France. — ξ xplicit  21:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Freedom of Panorama laws are irrelevant here. This chateau is more than 300 years old according to its wikipedia article here In fact, according to this independent (ie. non-wikipedia) article, chateau "Cheverny has maintained the same exterior for the last 350 years." So the original architect would have been dead for more than 70 years ago when FOP laws expire. This nomination makes no sense at all. It is like nominating an image of Notre Dame when everyone knows this church is more than 150 years old...as is this chateau. FOP laws don't apply when the architect or creator has been deceased for 70 years. That is why there are many images of this chateaau on Commons. If it was not free, the Admins there would have deleted it long ago. Does not Notre Dame pass the 'threshold of originality'....and yet no one on WikiCommons nominates any of its images for deletion since its creators died more than 70 years ago because there is a time limit to Freedom of Panorama. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:48, 21 July 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:KJSL Truth talk Logo June 2010.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 ⚡  02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:KJSL Truth talk Logo June 2010.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image is a logo. Unlikely that the uploader holds the rights. Leo 21:36, 20 July 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:Josef Stutz.JPG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Josef Stutz.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * date of original image of which this is a derivative work is not stated; therefore more detail is needed to establish copyright status. Rodhull  andemu  22:45, 20 July 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:Memorial to Kenneth Scott Latourette at Yali School, Hunan, PRC.JPG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Memorial to Kenneth Scott Latourette at Yali School, Hunan, PRC.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Copyright on this image depends on freedom of panorama in the People's Republic of China. This seems to suggest that the original author should be credited, but such credit is lacking. Rodhull  andemu  22:51, 20 July 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:Capadocia3.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Capadocia3.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Logo that is not likely to be CC licensed. Eeekster (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The rights to use the image for non-commercial and promotional purposes were provided to me by HBO. If Wikipedia doesn't allow this kind of rights, then I'm OK with the file removal. Theexxs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 21 July 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:Cowan Creek Amenity Center.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  11:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Cowan Creek Amenity Center.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Claims to belong to SEC Planning, LLC. Eeekster (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The image file was sent to me digitally by SEC Planning with the request that I add a Community Commons Share and Share Alike license in the company name (the company owns the photo). I am happy to get an email from the company attesting to their willingness to license it for Share and Share Alike. Or is there a different version of the CCA license I should have used that is more applicable? There are so many different CC licenses that I am not quite sure wich to use sometimes. I'd appreciate your advice to get this correct.  <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #008080;padding:1px;"> Austex  •  Talk  00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to request that the photo not be deleted until we can get the proper license in place. NOTICE: I also thought I'd disclose that there is a second photo with the exact same circumstance:  File:Sun_City_Texas_pool.jpg so that we get them both corrected at the same time.  Thanks.  <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #008080;padding:1px;"> Austex  •  Talk  00:28, 21 July 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:Cowan_Creek_Amenity_Center.jpg‎
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  10:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Cowan Creek Amenity Center.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * photo is owned by SEC Planning, LLC as the architect/planner company of the building in the photo (taken by an employee while documenting their various projects). I would be happy to provide an email or other certification from an officer of the company as needed to verify ownership and it's release for a CC Share and Share Alike license.  Or to use a different license if I have selected poorly <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #008080;padding:1px;"> Austex  •  Talk  03:20, 22 July 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.