Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 May 1



File:Truebluealtver.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 ⚡  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Seems to be shot from video.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  02:47, 1 May 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:Truebluealtver.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 ⚡  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


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


 * this image is non-free Nofoolz (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just posted this above. If you want it deleted, add to the top of the file page.  •  ɔ   ʃ   →  03:43, 1 May 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:DSC000669.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 ⚡  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * File:DSC000669.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * product artwork Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 1 May 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:DSC000776.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 ⚡  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * File:DSC000776.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Box-art included. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:57, 1 May 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:DSC000881.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 ⚡  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * File:DSC000881.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Product box-art Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 1 May 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:DSC000884.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 ⚡  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * File:DSC000884.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Product box-art Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 1 May 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:DSC000885.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 ⚡  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * File:DSC000885.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Clearly magazine cover Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:05, 1 May 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:X-50 3d view.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 ⚡  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * File:X-50 3d view.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader claimed he image is free but did not claim he is the creator nor no other information provided. The image may only used as fair use Matthew_hk   t  c  10:26, 1 May 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:Einstein UK.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 ⚡  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Taken from life.com and claimed to be PD-US because of non-renewed copyright, but the website has a copyright notice "Photo: Scherl/SZ Photo/Mary Evans" ("SZ Photo" probably standing for "Süddeutsche Zeitung"). Thus, we don't really know when and how it was first published, and cannot assess PD status without more precise info. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: The deletion request is contested for various reasons:


 * Tagging editor requesting deletion has been notified that this, and numerous other deletion requests, has been posted at Wikiquette_alert as possible  wikihounding, using multiple, simultaneous deletion requests against only my images following unrelated edit disputes. They even included the gratuitious comment, "straightforward deletion cases that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of not getting deleted, for all I can see."


 * Editor did not post notice on any of the images so that others may be alerted;
 * The primary rationale given is that the website has a copyright notice. However, copyrights to photographs are specific to the photograph and/or the publication when first published. There is no renewal or other copyright found for this image, and any subsequent web page or other publication copyrights would not either renew or extend any copyright, even if there was one. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I missing something? So far we don't even know when and how it was first published, do we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The date and publication are listed in the source you referred to: Life magazine and 1933. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that? On the source page ? I can only see it was made in 1933, not that it was published at that date, and the fact that it is credited to a photo agency other than Life.com would tend to indicate that it was not in fact published in Life Magazine? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a reasonable assumption that an image from a Life magazine website, with many related images of the same subject, some with a "Life" indicia on the image itself, would have been taken from their own magazine. The name of an agency source with a photo, for older photos, usually refers to the company which stores and supplies higher quality images to third party buyers. They act as middlemen. News agencies nowadays, like AP, will often have their own photographers for current event photos.  But back in 1933, even if an agency provided the photo, the publication in Life would begin the copyright period.  Listing their name here makes no difference to the copyright status. Like many vintage news photos, it's usually impossible to trace the name of the photographer or their employer with absolute certainty. All we can go by are "reasonable" assumptions and copyright searches, which can usually be done online. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The SZ images online database, to which the life.com page seems to refer, is unfortunately down at the moment. To make things more confusing, it's also listed at corbisimages.com, with "© Bettmann/CORBIS". Unfortunately that still doesn't tell us about its publication history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Corbis/Bettman is just a photo stock agency. They also have their copyright insignia on everything for their web site so images don't get clipped, although a large % of their photos are PD. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:25, 2 May 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:Santamariamap.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 ⚡  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Photo of map - No indication uploader made map featured. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 1 May 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.