Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 March 24



File:Jack_LaLanne_51b.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: rendered moot. This is now tagged as non-free. Discussion about whether this image is suitable for Wikipedia as a non-free image is outside the scope of this discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Jack LaLanne 51b.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Unknown date, random web source, no info on original copyright make verification of public domain status impossible. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Has a reasonable presumption of PD status based on newly added source info. Image is widely available on the web. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is nonetheless a presumption that is not currently verified because it lacks a factual basis. Furthermore, there is no indication that the other image linked in the description, the one of LaLanne posing on the cover of Strength & Health, is in the public domain. According to the magazine was published well into the 80s, so there is at least a high probability that the publisher renewed the copyright of prior issues. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A copyright search seems to show that no copyrights of any sort, either new or renewals, were filed since 1978. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Works registered prior to 1978 may be found only in the Copyright Public Records Reading Room." ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Renewals are also included online, so all original copyrights from 1950 would be renewed after 1978. But they didn't register any copyrights since 1978, so I wouldn't assume they did before then either. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The work we are talking about (not the nominated image, to keep things from getting confused) was published in 1942. The publishers could have renewed the copyright between 1970 (expiration of 28 year first term) and 1978. There's a decent chance that the magazine cover has lapsed into the public domain, but right now that is an unverified presumption.
 * As for the nominated image, a source is required as a bare minimum. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * License changed to non-free. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Small content quibble: how about exchanging this image with the free File:Jack LaLanne.jpg in the infobox. The copyrighted image isn't necessary to identify him in light of a free alternative, but it might serve a good purpose in the section on exercise where the free photo now resides. The illustrative value of that placement would provide for a more plausible fair use rationale. It would still be nice to find a source. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) It's reasonable to suggest this on the Talk page and get other opinions. Most of the bio, including the lead, focuses on his prime professional weightlifting years, so the photo fits nicely. A lead image of him in his 90s wouldn't have the same relevance, IMO. As for a new source, my guess is that this was a photo handed out with autographs, much like .--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of relevance, it's a matter of having a free alternative. Since we now appear to agree that this image is not free, the specific usage and rationale become limited by policy. There needs to be a case made for using this image beyond simply identifying the man. Mind you, I think that there is a valid fair use claim - just not for the infobox. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was a policy about an infobox photo vs. a body-text photo. But the one of him as a weightlifter supports the lead, so helps visitors more. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:15, 25 March 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:TU Cricket.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 ⚡  03:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Likely copyright violation. Known serial copyvio uploader. First uploaded version was already demonstrated to be a copyvio, the current one was uploaded when the first was challenged. No explanation of how and when it was made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 24 March 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:Logooo.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Same editor has uploaded multiple images of artworks by an artist named Dora Keresztes and others by an artist called István Orosz, but claimed them all as "own work". She also had one commons upload credited to herself under the name of "Pazsit Ulla" . Can't really be true in all cases. For the present file, it's not even clear whether the uploader wants this to be understood as a work by Orosz himself, as there is no description. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 24 March 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:Temi.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 ⚡  03:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Professional publicity shot that would require a formal statement of release via OTRS to be retained. Fæ (talk) 15:54, 24 March 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:Quebec Blue Ensign.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 ⚡  03:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Quebec Blue Ensign.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

These flags belong to their respective countries and are not a product of this user's work. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  19:45, 24 March 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.