Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 December 12



File:Deltasigmaphiucla.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 ⚡  02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Garbled copyright status: claims and "Photo taken by Beta Gamma chapter of Delta Sigma Phi."  Not compatible. GrapedApe (talk) 01:06, 12 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:Jcl front cover.jpg et al

 * 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.- F ASTILY  (TALK) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Jcl front cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Mup front cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Gye front cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Idt front cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Disability & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:International Journal of Audiology.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Audiological Medicine (SUAM).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Expert Opinion on Emerging Drugs.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Expert Opinion on Drug Safety.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Jdt front cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * journal cover; no source; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder; if not legit, fake should not be retained Skier Dude  ( talk ) 06:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom or make Fair-use. Uploader is not the copyright holder in the case.  However, if Uploader could supply the information to turn these into Fair use image, then they could be saved.  However, uploader knew this (see other uploads), but he chose to upload the images as his 'Own' instead, so it should be up to him to correct this files.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Make in-use ones fair use. Delete with great prejudice the others.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Graped Ape. Buffs (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Make "Fair use" where possible, delete the rest  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:59, 20 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:Samantha.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 ⚡  02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * The image is taken from a blog. Clear indications of Watermark &mdash; Commander (Ping me) 13:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 106.76.233.220 (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC) It is my blog. So It is not protected by any copyrights. So it doesn't violate any laws ..


 * Delete - The image may be from 106.76.233.220's "blog", but that doesn't mean he owns to copyright. How did he get this image?  Did he take it yourself?  Was he hired to do it?  If this information is provided a correct license may be found, but as it stands now the image should be deleted.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The image is unused and, without any amplifying information, it can't be used for any encyclopedic function. Buffs (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete. It has no copyright violation.. The blog mentioned in the image is my blog site. Jaiyabharat 09:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the fact that the image is Unused and may be a advertizement, the image should still be deleted. Again, just because it appears on Jaiyabharat or 106.76.233.220's blog, doesn't mean the image is his.  The needed information has not been supplied (ie. what is asked for in the information template), so there is no way to determine if Jaiyabharat or 106.76.233.220 is the copyright holder.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Forget unused and advertising concerns. How about that the subject isn't identified? Without that information, it serves no WP purpose. We aren't an image hosting site. Buffs (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * :-) Buffs (talk) 06:10, 22 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:DanielWebsterJones3.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 ⚡  02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:DanielWebsterJones3.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This image comes from the 1997 "Reprint" of "Forty Years Among the Indians". The image was not included in the original 1890 verson, therefore the image was not pubished prior to 1923 as the tag claims. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject of this photo died in 1915. Since it has his signature, it was obviously available prior to 1915. Just because it was used in a book in 1997 doesn't mean that it wasn't published earlier. A request for more information was sent to the Sharlot Hall museum. Buffs (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is possible that this image is out of copyright, where is the evidence? We cannot assume it is.
 * 1. Being "available" is not the same a being "published". The current License (ie PD-US) requires proof of publication.  None has been provided.  The source is a book from the 1997.  This doesn't establish that it was "Published" prior to 1923.
 * 2. No author is given. Therefore we cannot assign it a " Author died" type tag (ie PD-old).  The author must have died over 70 years ago. That means the author only had to live 26 years after taking the photo ca 1915.  Even back then this could have very easily happened.  We just don't know.
 * This is a case where, unfortunately, the unloader has failed to supply enough information to show it is PD.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not assuming anything. We don't assume something is nonfree just because we don't have details. We should strive to find out what the answer is, not just treat something PD or copyrighted just because we don't have all the answers.
 * Second, your interpretation of copyright law is flawed. I never stated that the photo was published, only that it was available and it indicates the date it was developed and, at least, made available to the subject prior to his death, nothing more. There are FAR more public domain options than WP currently offers. It is quite possible that the photo was taken prior to 1890, in which case, unpublished or not, the photo would be in the public domain. There's also the high probability that the author died prior to 1941, in which case, PD-old would certainly apply.
 * Lastly, the book from 1997 used the photo from another article. Currently, I am working with a Mr. Scott Anderson, Assistant Archivist at the Sharlot Hall Museum to determine more details about the photo. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I dispute that my "interpretation of copyright law is flawed". I have extensively studied all the PD domain options and have used all of them myself numerous times (see My upload)  None of the tags apply in this case simply because the unloader has failed to supply enough information to show it is PD.  Unless the uploader (or yourself) can show that the image is in fact pre-1890, that the author did in-fact die prior to 1941, or the image was "Published" at a minimum pre-1977 and without Copyright notice then the image is not free.
 * Per WP:IUP and WP:COPYRIGHT it is Wikipedia's policy that we are in fact supposed to "assume something is nonfree just because we don't have details". It is the Uploaders responsibility to back up his choice in copyright tags, which he failed to do so in this case.  The default position is that the image is not free, therefore this image is non-free per policy.
 * Saying "There's also the high probability that the author died prior to 1941" or "It is quite possible that the photo was taken prior to 1890," is an assumption that cannot be substantiated with what the uploader supplied.
 * If Mr. Scott Anderson, can supply the required information, then by all means add that information to the the image so it can be proven to be public Domain. Sometime when an image is tagged PUF the uploader or someone else (like yourself) will see the problem and can infact show it is PD.  I then "Withdraw" my PUF tag immediately.  I have done it in the past and I will continue to do it.  However, given what is in front of us at the moment this image in NOT Public Domain.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that the instructions below indicate that the discussion should not be modified, but I'm not sure where else to comment on the discussion, and feel that a few points ought to be put on the record. I uploaded the picture of my ancestor, Daniel Webster Jones, to Wikipedia on 15 April 2006.  Yes, I obtained the picture from the 1997 reprint of Forty Years Among the Indians.  This edition was published by my uncle, Nathan Jones, also a descendant.  I don't know where he obtained the picture, or if the photographer died prior to 1941.  My thoughts were that, as a descendant of a long-deceased individual who had made significant contributions, I was within my rights to start the article and to provide the picture as an illustration.  Thanks, Ryan Reeder (talk) 08:30, 10 July 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.