Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 December 11



File:Regina airport, 1940.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 ⚡ 02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Regina airport, 1940.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * 1940 Image so no way author died more then 100 years ago :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 00:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the copyright law which is applicable here is that of Canada, not the USA. It is that copyright for anonymous works is fifty years from publication or 75 years from creation. Masalai (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know what template to use? If so please change it or notify me on my talk page. :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 04:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is just a template issue. On the source page itself, it states "All photos are public domain unless otherwise indicated". Buffs (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case, what template should we use? :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 03:54, 16 December 2011 (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:"The Tear," painting Mike Rimbaud.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Doesn't appear to be the work of the uploader. "original painting by Mike Rimbaud" Eeekster (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2011 (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:Moncton airport 1929.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Moncton airport 1929.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Canadian government is not the same as US govt :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 02:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to me to probably be PD. Assuming it it a government work then, as it is under crown copyright, it would have entered PD 50 years after publication.  Assuming it was published relatively soon after ceation then it would have been PD in Canada at the beginning of 1996 so PD in the US.  The one question is over when this was first published and without source info that's hard to know (and also makes it hard to verify that it is a government work). Dpmuk (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2011 (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:100807fiestaPG-045.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 We can't AGF when it comes to copyright. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * File:100807fiestaPG-045.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted.  No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 06:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that there are three completely different photos there. It is unclear if the licence information refers to all of them or just to some of them. Delete all three. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The user only edited the article Stroud & Swindon Building Society so I think that we can asume that the uploader is related to the SSBS in some way. Most likely an employee. An employee would have the opportunity to take the photos. All versions/files are uploaded by the same user so I think it is safe to asume that the license is valid for all 3 photos. The photo is in use so it is in scope. So the only question is if we trust that uploader took the photo(s) or not. Google showed no other files on the Internet. So we could choose to asume good faith here. --MGA73 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2012 (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:1000MCM penetrants.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 -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * File:1000MCM penetrants.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Appears to have been taken from a textbook/manual of some sort, Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder  F ASTILY  (TALK) 06:18, 11 December 2011 (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:1. Dan Masterson - Pearl River.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 Promotional argument...is non-explainitory, Likely copyrighted...I would like to see some evidence in this case since it's a person. And I'm gonna counter the argument, No reason given to suggest that uploader is not the copyright holder. Someone want to nuke the duplicates though? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * File:1. Dan Masterson - Pearl River.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted.  No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder.  F ASTILY s  (TALK) 07:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the users uploads you will notice more files like that.

It could be old family photos but we do not know. However if this file is deleted then the other versions of the file should also be deleted. And if the file is kept the "dupes" should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2012 (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:2005Away.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 -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * File:2005Away.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted.  No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder.  F ASTILY  (TALK) 09:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not? I see no reason to think that uploader is not the photographer and later removed the background. If it was done by a professional as a promotional image I think that the removal of the background would have been done better. But the file is unused so I think it can be deleded as not used and no forseen use. --MGA73 (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, this was used in a blatant advert/copyvio. Probably unfree. - F ASTILY  Happy 2012!! 20:34, 2 January 2012 (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:Von-waldeyer-hartz.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Von-waldeyer-hartz.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The license says author died more than 100 years ago but there is no author or anything to support that. MGA73 (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject died in 1921, so it had to be taken before that. Buffs (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but that does not mean that the photographer died more than 100 years ago. If picture was taken in 1915 it is not yet 100 years ago. And even if it was taken in 1900 it does not mean that photographer could not have lived until 1950. --MGA73 (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2011 (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:Sully Erna 2.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Sully Erna 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This seems to be a publicity photo. Tinyeye brings back no hits but I wanted to see what you all thought. I blocked this user for copyvios yesterday after CSDing a cache of photos they uploaded. Guerillero &#124; My Talk  21:24, 11 December 2011 (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:Hit the Lights.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Hit the Lights.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Unreliable source, and screams fake. The song is from "Selena Gomez & the Scene" not "Selena Gomez". — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be better suited for files for deletion --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  21:31, 11 December 2011 (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:Clint Lowery 2.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Clint Lowery 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Studio image of an artist. I doubt that they are the creator. Tinyeye brings back no hits Guerillero &#124; My Talk  21:29, 11 December 2011 (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.