Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 February 12



File:Ringsofpower.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 ⚡  17:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


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


 * No longer used - was previously used on Rings of Power. It's too small to be of any possible use. --rpeh •T•C•E• 13:15, 12 February 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.

Several mugshots

 * 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 all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Graziano.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:SalVitale.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:JosephCorozzo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:SVitabile.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:RossGangi.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:JackDeRoss.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:MikeyScars.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:Pitera.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:Ianniello.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:Daidone.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:Asaroo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])

On 28 January and 2 February, removed from a number of photographic head-shots the claim that they were FBI mugshots (contribs), and also retagged them from PD-USGov-FBI to Non-free fair use in. They were then starting to be deleted for having no non-free use rationales.

I've reverted all the edits, but I thought I'd flag what had been done here, in case anybody wants to take a look. Jheald (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: My problem would be the source. None seem to actual be obtained from the FBI - Is Was geocities a reliable source? And Gangland news is a niche site, but in looking it over I don't (can't) see any clear cut attribution given to the FBI for images on the front page. As for the direct links given as source they will only work if one pays to view them. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, something that somewhat concerned me here is that we have what on the face of it looks like an SPA account, who in their first edits went straight to the file pages for these images, and removed content from the pages and changed the copyright status tags in such a way that the images would get deleted, all without explanation or discussion. That makes me uneasy.
 * I don't know whether these are FBI mugshots or not, because I don't know what FBI mugshots or surveillance shots look like -- is there a standard form for them, or a central repository? I don't know (maybe people here do).  But it does seem to me that even if these were not FBI shots, they should qualify as identifying shots of individuals most of whom appear likely to be out of circulation for rather a long time -- so if, after proper discussion here at WP:PUI, they were to end up being reclassified, then any such reclassification should accompanied with NFC rationales being added on that basis, so that the images are not lost when they are making an appropriate contribution to the relevant articles.  Jheald (talk) 14:20, 13 February 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:2009 Ekin Cheng in Friends For Life Concert.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. Here's the problem: "Taken by a fan" is indeed an unverifiable statement, and it's enough to basically make it so vague as to be worthless. So there's one fatal nail in the "delete" coffin right there. Also agreed that the "own work" template is less than convincing, due to the amount of copyvios and such that I have seen using that template. As a point here, it should be noted that on my own uploads (like this recent one, for example), I don't use the "own work" tags at all, partly because of its being less than meaningful, preferring to manually write it in (multiple times). And lastly, agreed that in file deletion processes, where the image is failing for policy reasons, the burden is on those who desire to retain the image to make their case, since these kinds of discussions normally default to delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * File:2009 Ekin Cheng in Friends For Life Concert.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This has been twice marked for deletion and twice "declined" (October 2010 - no source, February 2011 - no permission) by the same admin, one with a history of removing such deletion tags because they feel  all material with a "self" license is fine as it give both "source" and "permission." This problem with this file is that the summary says this image was "taken by a fan". That is extremely vague as a true source. As such it is impossible to verify permission. The user has not been active since April  2010 and their only other image uploaded was File:Ekincheng.JPG, which was deleted in January 2010 as a "Media file with improper license." So, in its current form, the image suffers: 1. No source, 2. No permission, 3. Possible invalid license due to 1 and 2. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no reason to believe that when Anekin said "I, the author of this work, hereby publish it..." they were lying. There is no reason to believe that they are not the fan in question - certainly their contribution history suggests they are an Ekin Cheng fan. The picture was taken with equipment typical of a serious amateur photographer. On the balance of probabilities, this image is just what it claims to be. Thparkth (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment:The issue is that use of a "self" tag does not really tell anything. In my years of dealing with images I can not tell you the large amount of copyvios I have found tagged with a "self" tag. The same goes for good faith uploads that have come from other sources - other than the uploader that is. "well my friend said it was ok" or "It was on a forum and I asked if it was ok" type of comments. This is the case here and it has been question now be several other editors. The argument here should have never been, and should not be now, "Well it it tagged with a 'self' tag and that is enough", because it is not. As far as "their contribution history suggests they are an Ekin Cheng fan" goes there is another way to view that - they are a fan who visits blogs, websites, social networking sites and so on an obtained the image from those. Last year there was a fan of another band that I came across and the too had a contribution history suggested they were a fan of that act - every single one of their uploads was a copyvio, all of which were using a "self" tag. Beyond all of that, as I have already said, but bear repeating - one needs to read what the uploader said - specifically that is was "taken by a fan" *and* to be used on the "Ekin Cheng Wikipedia page." On the first part I have never yet seen an uploader who talks about themselves in the third person. On the second lets presume your argument about the "self" license is correct - the summary contradicts the given license because it clearly implies use only on Wikipedia. That type of materiel is not allowed.  Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to the contrary, I do feel that the "self" tag is enough. I don't agree that the uploader's description contradicts the license - they are simply describing the image using neutral language. It doesn't read to me like an attempt to restrict the use to Wikipedia. Thparkth (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Unfortunately in this case the Burden of evidence rests with you, and any other editor who wishes to retain this. In other words the "self" tag alone does not satisfy the requirements of the Image use policy. Because this adds some text in the "summary" it starts to meet policy requirements however due to the vagueness of the wording it needs to be verified. Verifiability is a policy that applies to images as well - meaning, in line with the Image use policy, it requires things such as "self" tags and author/source to be verified if need be. As I say, as you are voicing a keep the Burden of evidence rests with you. Contact the uploader and have them submit a permissions email to OTRS. If OTRS received a permissions email that stated "I, the copyright holder, allow use of this image in the Ekin Cheng Wikipedia page" it would not be accepted. If OTRS reviewed an email that said "A fan took this photo and there is permission allow use of this image in the Ekin Cheng Wikipedia page" it would not be accepted. If a picture found on Flickr that said "All rights reserved. Permission allow use of this image in the Ekin Cheng Wikipedia page granted" it would not be allowed if uploaded *and* provided an actual source. If a picture was on a fan forum and Thparkth said "Wow, cool photo. Can I use it on the Ekin Cheng Wikipedia page?" and someone on the forum said "Yes, I allow use of this image in the Ekin Cheng Wikipedia page" that would not be enough to verify once uploaded here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion you are presenting a unique understanding of the image upload process and the role of OTRS, and one which is not supported by consensus or policy. I will leave it at that. Thparkth (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: I read that as someone who can not provide any solid proof...or you can not meet the required Burden of evidence. If you disagree with policy feel free to take it up at the related policy page/s. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 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:Kajal BigC16.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 - I can see clear evidence (see here and the related image exif date) that this image far predates the claimed date of creation and that neither this - not the image I have linked to - is the original. Couple that with the uploader's other obvious uploads that incorrectly claim "self-made" and it is clear that the claimed source and licence are incorrect
 * File:Kajal BigC16.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Likely copyvio, multiple images of similar resolution at this event available on various promo/movie sites. I haven't been able to find an exact match for this though. User has uploaded other similar images from websites claiming own work. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as with the next image, this looks very much like a snapshot taken by an amateur at a public event. There is no obvious reason to disbelieve the uploader when they claim to be the creator. Unless other sites have the image at a higher resolution, they probably obtained it from us. Thparkth (talk) 03:01, 25 February 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:Kajal at BigC16.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 - I can see clear evidence (see here and the related image exif date) that this image far predates the claimed date of creation and that neither this - not the image I have linked to - is the original. Couple that with the uploader's other obvious uploads that incorrectly claim "self-made" and it is clear that the claimed source and licence are incorrect
 * File:Kajal at BigC16.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Likely copyvio, multiple images of similar resolution at this event available on various promo/movie sites. I haven't been able to find an exact match for this though. User has uploaded other similar images from websites claiming own work. This is linked to above PuF discussion. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as with the above image. Thparkth (talk) 03:01, 25 February 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:Ocu2admi.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 ⚡  10:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Ocu2admi.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Very suspicious picture from a user with an EXTENSIVE history of putting copyrighted images on Wikipedia. No shooting/camera data, exact date, etc... Also the year of the photo given is, 1998 however the clarity and pixels seems to be much more clear than a digital camera of that era. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the copied image, it may have been taken down at the original since this and most of the same user's copyvio images existed on Wikipedia for years. Is it possible this user actually took 1 out of 40+ images- yes, is it likely- no. I think in this case it is better to be safe than sorry and delete this unused image. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 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:Civic Leadership Cover 2011.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 ⚡  13:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Civic Leadership Cover 2011.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image appears to be a derivative of the copyright image (http://www.clustershot.com/nicemonkey/photo505560) and as such, unless there is proof to the contrary, cannot be a freely licenced image. Peripitus (Talk) 20:33, 12 February 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:Worldwide Faith Missions.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 ⚡  10:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Worldwide Faith Missions.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * see commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:WFM_Convention.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:38, 12 February 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.