Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 October 17



File:Pittsburgh Steelers logo.svg

 * 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: Resolved. Tagged as Non-free logo --ARTEST4ECHO (talk 17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Pittsburgh Steelers logo.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is tagged as PD ineligible and consisting only of "typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes". I'd argue the graphical elements in this logo are not "simple geometric shapes", and this logo is pretty original. Obviously, I'm not asking this image to be deleted, but retagged as non-free, with rationales added for uses where it would qualify as fair use. Mosmof (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - this image contains substantive creative design elements and is copyrightable (and no doubt copyrighted). Thparkth (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. This logo contains an original design with a whole article about it. I am the original uploader and tagged it non-free then. 22:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of it. Replaced licensing with Non-Free Logo; added Fair Use Rationale. Consider the issue resolved. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 08:03, 26 October 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:Gantbridgevisitor.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 ⚡  02:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Gantbridgevisitor.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Bridge facts.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * File:Actualcable.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * All unsued images. The reason I put them here is because these look like crops of larger images taken from a video game. You can see some icons in the corners of some of these - a machine gun and part of a counter. File:Bridge facts.jpg cotains the words "Takes up a staggering 1.27 mbs of disk space." User also uploaded File:ADFA-A.jpg and File:ADFA-A.jpg, which are/were screenshots of game - ADF Aviator. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:02, 17 October 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:ADMU Xavier Hall cropped.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 ⚡  02:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:ADMU Xavier Hall cropped.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Unused image. My concern though is it is described as a "Cropped image of Ateneo de Manila University's Xavier Hall façade." But what is it cropped from? The source could possibly be unfree, thus why I placed it at PuI. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 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:Okerefalls1.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: delete. Because the image was previously published outside of Wikipedia, the best option would be to err to the side of caution and delete this file. If the copyright owner of this image would like to release it under a compatible free license, they are encouraged to review WP:DCM and following up with WP:OTRS. — ξ xplicit  00:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Okerefalls1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * While the uploader has released it under cc-by (self), the photo is very professional and more importantly, has a watermark to a photo company called 'limography'. Acather96 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for multiple reasons:
 * "Limography" is a photo blog featuring self-made pictures of the Philippines and New Zealand. This picture can be found here on the blog
 * The blog offers the image under a cc-by-nc-nd license (clearly incompatible with WP) but the blog also indicates that images can be licensed under other terms on request.
 * The WP copy is the original resolution from the camera; the image that can be downloaded from the blog is a much smaller version. The blog was not the source for this image.
 * The source information the WP uploader gave is entirely consistent with the EXIF information in the file.
 * The WP uploader contributes mainly to articles about places in the Philippines and New Zealand.
 * The WP uploader has given his name as "JT Lim" when uploading another image. This is the same name as is used for the copyright statement on the blog "All Rights Reserved. © Jan Michael Theodore Lim".
 * Given all this, it seems by far most likely that the WP uploader is also the "Limography" blogger and also the author and copyright holder. They are therefore quite entitled to release this image under cc-by.
 * I would also note that the image was made with a "serious amateur" camera (Canon 450D), and although it is nicely done, it is quite within the ability of any photography hobbyist with a DSLR and a tripod. We shouldn't assume that any well-made picture must be the product of a commercial photographer.
 * Thparkth (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The image has also been uploaded to a Flikr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmtvlim/4420282763/ with the same name as the uploader Majuro/ Majuro Ikagami and is marked as All Rights Reserved and the http://limography.tumblr.com/ also has All Rights Reserved. All that it would take would be for the uploader to change the permission on either flikr or tumblr to cc-by-3.0. MilborneOne (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just an observation - I don't know if it's normal practice on WP to ask uploaders to license images consistently outside WP, but there's no legal impediment to them offering the same image under completely different - even contradictory - licensing terms at the same time. If we agree that the WP uploader was the author and copyright holder, then they were entitled to release the image as cc-by no matter what they may have done elsewhere. Thparkth (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Yes, it is very normal to do that. Outside of fair use Wikipedia never allows conflicted licenses such as this. If there is one, and it is not a blatant copyio or clearly an F3, it is normal to ask the uploader, via the di-no permission tag for example, to provided evidence of permission. One of the methods is, if the uploader is the true copyright holder, they can change the source page license. (ie. make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license at the site of the original publication;) As MilborneOne said, to verify this image, "All that it would take would be for the uploader to change the permission on either flikr or tumblr to cc-by-3.0." And the other part of the issue you raised - a freely licensed image is, in a word, "Free". Can someone license a "free" image in other ways? It depends. The concept that a copyright holder can license "the same image under completely different - even contradictory - licensing terms at the same time" is only true in some cases. Legally, once an image is licensed under a free license for "everyone", or released of all copyright claims (into public domain), by the true copyright holder that license becomes valid for *everyone*. Based on Wikipedia Policy, the only "free" files accepted here are ones that everyone can use, not just Wikipedia. We want them to be free to use, redistribute, or modify the content, for any purpose, without significant legal restrictions, particularly those of copyright.. If a file were explicitly licensed this way (ie - "For Wikipedia use only this image licensed cc-by-3.0, All other users, please contact me. All Rights Reserved.") on Wikipedia it would for sure be speedied via F3. In other words all content on Wikipedia, with the limited fair use exceptions, must use the same license for *everyone* else, which is why these licensing issues come into play. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you quite significantly miss my point. If the author and copyright holder of an image uploads it here and places it under a free license, then it is indeed freely licensed for everyone. But this doesn't stop them also licensing it under different terms; for example I might upload an image here as cc-by but also license it to someone else under terms that do not require attribution. Similarly, I could also offer the image under a more restrictive license. You might ask why any sensible person would choose to accept that license, and you'd be right, but it's still perfectly legal for me to do so. In this case, the author has released the image under a cc-by license. That's all that matters. If we believe that the uploader was the author and copyright holder (as is clearly the case in this situation) then there is absolutely no reason - and no right - to request changes to some non-WP website. Thparkth (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply:No, you are, "quite significantly", not understanding the Wikipedia policies. I am not going to go into detail, but you can start at Image use policy, and in particular as it relates to this discussion, the section entitled Free licenses. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful if you would specify which part of my response you believe contradicts WP:IUP. Thparkth (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though I said I wasn't going into detail - I will. This covers the "why" Wikipedia has the "reason" *and* "right" to "request changes to some non-WP website" in regards to files.
 * Requirements - Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For this image that means the image itself contains a watermark of a website which, when checked, shows different licensing terms than what is contained on Wikipedia.
 * Adding images - You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license. When checking flickr ("All Rights Reserved") and limography/tumblr (text stating "For permission to use...." and "All Rights Reserved" and link to the full license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0) the same author has non-compatible licenses listed.
 * Adding images - Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use. - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 is clearly a license that "restrict derivatives" and states "non-commercial use only." And because text from the author also says "For permission to use...." it falls into "by permission".
 * User-created images and Free licenses - All user-created images must be licensed under a free license such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license, or they may also be released into the public domain, which removes all copyright and licensing restrictions. and Licenses which restrict the use of the media to non-profit or educational purposes only (i.e. noncommercial use only), or are given permission to only appear on Wikipedia, are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 is not free enough for Wikipedia, and it is not an acceptable license. The fact it carries a cc-by-3.0 on Wikipedia and not elsewhere is a valid, and legitimate, concern when following these policies.
 * See also: Finding images on the Internet - Images with any license restricting commercial use or the creation of derivative works may not be used on Wikipedia. If you had found this image on the internet and tried it upload it on Wikipedia it could have been speedied as a blatant copvio had you claimed a "free" license, or via Db-f3 as the "source" is licensed under a non Wikipedia compatible license. When the presumed copyright holder does the uploading see Granting us permission to copy material already online.
 * See also: Granting us permission to copy material already online - If you would like to allow Wikipedia or another English Wikimedia site to use your content, be it text or images, but don't want to put a license statement on the website, you still must release it under the free licenses noted above and can do so in the following ways: [SNIP] For images, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at WP:CONSENT
 * See also: Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia, Di-no permission and Di-no permission-notice - All contain the core concept of: Make a note permitting reuse [SNIP] at the site of the original publication; or Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-commons@wikimedia.org permissions-commons@wikimedia.org] or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation, ideally using the email template at WP:CONSENT
 * See also: di-no source. This tag is used when there is no source stated, or the source is too vague. It states Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. In this case there is a clear source, however, because there are also other "sources" that contain different licensing information it brings the entire reason back to Requirements and Adding images and the need to provide "information on how this could be verified" and to "prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license". Which, in turn, can be easily done by submitting an email to OTRS and/or changing the terms on the source website/s.

Hopefully that explain to you why Policy allows for this, and it has been standard practice for years in cases such as this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply. However I still disagree with your interpretation of policy in this case. You seem to believe that the blog is the "site of original publication" and the source for this image. This is not the case - the image uploaded to WP was not obtained from the blog, and in fact is not available on the blog except in a much lower-resolution format. So we have a much simpler situation than you envisage here, and one which can be resolved by two simple questions. 1. Was the uploader the author and copyright holder? Yes, we know he was. 2. Did the copyright holder license the image under a free license compatible with Wikipedia? Yes, we know he did - at the time of the WP upload. This particular page is designed to answer the question, "is this image freely licensed?". We can say with absolute confidence that in this particular case, the image is indeed freely licensed. Thparkth (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you invoke IAR, than yes. But I don't think that was the intent with this nom. The possibly unfree element is due to the fact the photographer has two other sites and neither of them state this is available via cc-by-3.0. If you want to bring photographers logic into this, based on image size here, it makes no sense to have restricted use of lower resolution files and allow un-restricted use of the higher resolution files. Photographers logic suggests it would be the opposite. But this is not based on "photographer logic", it is based on the existing Policies. So, again, in this case there is nothing wrong, or unjustified, with asking for verification via one of the accepted methods. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Acather96 and Soundvisions1--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 17:19, 27 October 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:Teefp101410L.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 ⚡  02:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Teefp101410L.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * At File:Teefp101410S.gif the uploader identifies himself as the editor/publisher, but that is not sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia's copyright requirements. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes proof that I am the creator of the image of the front page of my newspaper, The Eagle Extra? I have a website where the exact same image is found and where I am identified: http://www.theeagleextra.com. On my newspaper's website, this image is changed weekly to show the current edition. Is there a form to fill out to establish proper proof? What does "Boing" mean? Is it meant to be funny or insulting? I'm curious, because everything I have typed about my company is indeed true and serious. Please further explain so that Wikipedia is assured all uploaded images by me are indeed my property and no one else's. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.M. Schafer (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I can upload a PDF of this same page, will that help in establishing proof that I am the creator of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.M. Schafer (talk • contribs) 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply: You can submit a permission letter stating that all of the content on The Eagle Extra is available for free use. In other words, as an example, cropping File:Teefp101410L.gif to show only one of the images and using it on a book cover would be fine because you (The Eagle Extra) hired the photographer, via a work for hire contract, thusly you own the image. Or that it would be fine to use File:Teefp101410L.gif, or any portion of it, on a T-shirt. Actually - in looking over the files history it should he been tagged with di-no license as you never placed one on it. The wording you used in the summary of "This image may be used for other Wikipedia purposes" seems to imply the file can be used only on Wikipedia, which, if so, is against Wikipedia policy and can be speedied via Db-f3. What I suggest is to look over the list of Free licenses and use one of those on the image, and than send an email from an address associated with The Eagle Extra to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under the free license you chose. Take a look at the sample permission letter and if you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion. Keep in mind if you choose a free license and do not submit the permission letter the image may find itself back here at another deletion discussion.


 * On the other hand if you think your image meets the Non-free content policy, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed in Non-free Wikipedia file copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included.


 * Hope that helps clarify things. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Re "What does "Boing" mean? Is it meant to be funny or insulting?": It's part of my Wikipedia username, and no -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Boing! said Zebedee as image lacks permission (see di-no permission). Additionally there is possibly a WP:NOTADVERTISING issue as K.M. Schafer is the owner trying to promote his paper.  He has a clear WP:COI.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 17:25, 27 October 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:AG1.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 ⚡  02:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:AG1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:PinakiN1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * File:PGnews1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * File:PGnews3.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * File:PGnews2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * All unused scans. One is a scan of a personal letter, the others are scans of what appear to be a newspaper. All uploaded by a user who has not been active since 2007 and whose other uploads have been deleted Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. The uploader's name is different to the author of the letter, so he is almost certainly not the creator of it as claimed. He is also almost certainly not the creator of the newspaper featured in the other images, and there is no evidence of permission from the copyright holder. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 18 October 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.