Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 May 23



File:Map of the Green Ukraine.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

gazeta.ua don't have copyright on this image. The image as you see from some book. Because gazeta.ua used it, I think it is free using.--UeArtemis (talk) 12:50, 23 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:Musee-national-exterior-MCB.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 ⚡  02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Musee-national-exterior-MCB.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No FOP in France, images of architecture there are copyrighted, and this does not fall under de minimis.  — fetch ·  comms   03:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not free for the same reason that File:Pompidou center.jpg isn't. Could be used as a replacement though if someone thinks it's preferable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 00:37, 5 June 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:Emilywilliamsonstage.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 ⚡  02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Uploader has a bad history of uploading copyrighted images under fair-use or claiming as there own. This image is suspect as it has no EXIF/META information, low resolution and with the uploader's history. Bidgee (talk) 05:14, 23 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:BigFantasticTeam.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 ⚡  02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Studio style photo of a band. Likely copyrighted.  No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:39, 23 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:2010reyes.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 ⚡  01:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:2010reyes.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Possibly non-free image. Web resolution. Lacks meta data for an image claimed as self-made. Bluemask (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: this appears to be a better version of this image clearly removing the text from the right side. Uploader has repeatedly uploaded copyright images of this person. ww2censor (talk) 12:17, 28 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:Hall-Mills 027.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 G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  19:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Hall-Mills 027.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * If this edit is to be believed, the image is actually from 1988 and not 1922 public domain. I guess this also assumes that superimposing the image would be a derivative work.  If I'm right, it would be a fairuse image and I think it would fail NFCC #8, since I do not believe that a recreation of how the bodies were placed significantly increases readers' understanding, especially when the article says it is notable not for the murders so much as the press reporting at the time (i.e. a recreation wouldn't be relevant).  This link adds nothing as to the copyright issue. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As Ricky says, if it is a 1988 image rather than an old public-domain image, it is clearly copyrighted and would need an FUR. Which I agree would be difficult. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  voice vote  ─╢ 10:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfectly understandable though. The link has a misleading caption. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 23 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:Nickafter.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 ⚡  17:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Can't find a source for this so not eligible to speedy, but the image contains a Nickelodeon logo, which is copyrighted. AussieLegend (talk) 15:40, 23 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:TanzanianCheetah.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, as everystockphoto.com basically has a cached version which is licensed under CC-BY. These licenses are irrevocable. — ξ xplicit  01:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Image appears to be taken from this Flickr photo. Since everystockphoto cites the Flickr image as the source, it would make sense that the "All rights reserved" license on Flickr is not the correct one. Mosmof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The most likely explanation would seem to be that the Flickr user changed the license. CC licenses are not revocable, so if that's the case we can still use the image legally.  The only problem is that Flickr, unfortunately, doesn't record license changes, and so the only concrete evidence we have that the image ever was CC-BY is that everystockphoto lists it as such.  Their disclaimer, in turn, specifically says that "It is your responsibility to verify the source license of the photo".  So I suppose the question is, do we trust the uploader and/or everystockphoto enough to assume that this image used to be CC-BY, despite the latter disclaiming all responsibility for license verification, or do we delete it and hope this is just an isolated case?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at everystock's terms of use (and not just the disclaimer by the photo) I see "everystockphoto indexes, caches, and provides information about creative commons photos. Although we provide information as to the license of each photo, this information was accurate only at the time of indexing, and we provide no gaurantee that this is still the case" (emphasis added). I think that's plenty for this image, because CC licenses are explicitly non-revocable. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated the image description with the date and author information recorded at the time it was indexed by everystockphoto.com. —RP88 (talk) 05:51, 5 June 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:80px-WPNICK ubox icon svg.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 ⚡  17:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * File:80px-WPNICK ubox icon svg.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Nickelodeon splat logo. Copyright owned by Nickelodeon AussieLegend (talk) 15:44, 23 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:Aldo Moro.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 ⚡  02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * No evidence that Italian government works would be PD; see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aldo Moro.jpg. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:42, 23 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:Juan negrin.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 ⚡  02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * The license information from the Government of the Canary Islands talks about "reproduction". It seems to me that, although use, even commercial, is allowed, nothing is said about the possibility of modifying the picture. That's not really free (of course that the file could be used under a proper fair-use rationale) Ecemaml (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep if fair-use rationale is added: the licencing information is not clear enough for us to decide if an Attribution tag would be appropriate and the source page clearly shows a copyright symbol, however, because the subject is dead its use under a WP:NFCC would be acceptable in an article about the subject. ww2censor (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * May I include the fair-use rationale? Or is the uploader the one that must do it? --Ecemaml (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any editor is permitted to fix incorrect image copyright tags or to add a fair use rationale to an image. Both should be done if you want to keep this image.  —RP88 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 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.