Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 March 3



File:RegencyGoldDomeFire.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 ⚡  05:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Where is the evidence that this image has been released into the public domain? Footwarrior (talk) 00:42, 3 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:CD-logo-small.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 ⚡  05:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * File:CD-logo-small.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Company logo unlikely to be CC licensed. Eeekster (talk) 01:27, 3 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.

Uploads by Jordanson

 * 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) 03:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)
 * (a derivative work anyway)

See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Photos uploaded by user Jordanson from english wiki. Indeed, a look through this user's history shows deletions for copyright violations and cameras of all different models. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:56, 3 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:Badiou being and appearance.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 ⚡  05:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Badiou being and appearance.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

It was handed to the audience at a talk that was open to the public. What would be the next step to provide further evidence that this work is public domain? LeeAzzarello (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Image created by Alain Badiou; no evidence that he released it into the public domain. There is another file (File:Badiou-an_original_drawing.jpg) which is also possibly unfree. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:55, 3 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.

Images taken and uploaded by User:RadioFan

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: deleted --B (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

These are photographs of forensic reconstructions of George Washington that, according to, the photographer and uploader, were taken at a traveling exhibition. He asserted fair use on the statues when queried, but the image pages still claim he is the creator, and list only his copyright on the image. I am uncertain about the legitimacy of the fair use claim.  Magic ♪piano 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)




 * Photography was allowed at the exhibits. I did take the photographs and have clarified each of the images above to indicate that I took the photograph and removed anything that might even imply that I created the sculpture.  The source of the sculpture itself should be clear in the description of each image. I'm no copyright lawyer but my understanding is that photographs of works art (which seems appropriate in this case) not yet in the public domain are reasonable if the quality of the photograph is insufficient enough to prevent competition with the work of art.Copyright Information and Education from UMN  These images are small enough and poor quality enough that I dont see much possibility of them being used in a competitive manner.  My understanding is also that authorized photographers (which I am by the lack of photo restrictions in the exhibit, something I verified before even bringing my camera) may claim copyright over photographic reproductions created by them, and can therefor publish it under Creative Commons or any other license desired.  Again I'm no copyright lawyer so I might be missing something, and if I am, let me know and I'll request the images be deleted. As an aside, I was contacted by a state agency requesting permission to use the photographs in a standardized test. I advised that person to contact the owner of the exhibit where the photographs were taken to validate any copyright concerns before moving forward.  Because (again), I'm not a lawyer.--RadioFan (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is that you have not identified who the artists (or rightsholders, as appropriate) were that created the artworks you photographed, and what their copyright is. You've identified who staged the exhibition; fine, ask them who owns the rights to those artworks.  Your claim of fair use implies the copyright of the photographed work resides elsewhere, and may very well not be free; this means you need to publish a fair use rationale for every use of the image on the image page, in addition to identifying the artist or rights owner of the underlying work.  See also Commons:Commons:Derivative works.  I'm not a lawyer either; this is why the question is here.  Magic ♪piano 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The creator of the work is identified in the description. Thats all the information I have.--RadioFan (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You did identify the source correctly. The problem is the license on the photograph pages. You added the template for "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses..." and listed the GFDL and CC. A photograph is a derivative work, so it retains the copyright of the sculpture. If the sculpture is copyrighted, then you can't put your own alternate license on the photograph, you can only list it as copyrighted with a fair use notice. So you would need to remove the licensing notice you put (GFDL/CC) and replace it with a copyright notice, and also a with as much information as possible. If you can't identify the copyright holders then it's a non-starter.


 * Fair use on Wikipedia is pretty labyrinthine and I doubt it would be allowed for these photos, I'm sorry to say. I don't really have any strong opinions on it, but others do. Our guidelines for fair use are more stringent than the real fair use laws. Fair use here is mainly for extremely important photos (File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg), photos of deceased people where no free image exists, identifying images (such as movie posters) where no free image exists, and photos that illustrate something specifically addressed in the article (these reconstructions are not). Most likely these images won't fit into fair use and can't be used on Wikipedia. —Designate (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the research, I think you are right. Images have been tagged for deletion and removed from the article.--RadioFan (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From googling, I found an article describing "Three full-size, life-like figures of Washington based on the latest forensic research". If that's what you saw, I'm going out on a limb and assuming they were created sometime after 1989, meaning that no matter what, even if there's no notice, they are copyrighted.  Unless the photos are being used in an article or section about the sculptures themselves, use of these photos would not be a legitimate example of fair use. --B (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't need to do all that Googling, the images are dated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs)
 * The question isn't when you took the photos - the question is when the sculptures are made. If the sculptures were made before 1989, did not bear a copyright notice, and the copyright was never registered with the copyright office, then they are public domain.  If they were made during or after 1989, then they are copyrighted regardless.  No derivative work may be made of a copyrighted work, apart from fair use. --B (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All images have been removed from the article they were on and the images deleted. I think we can consider this closed.--RadioFan (talk) 20:57, 4 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:Kiki warner.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 ⚡  05:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Blurry and distorted photograph, looks like a video screencapture. In that case it's probably from a copyrighted TV programme and likely not the uploader's own work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally shot the video with a basic flipcam. I then took a screen capture of my own video.  Therefore, it is my personal work.  Bluetiger50 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)BlueTiger50
 * Looks to me like, however it may have been captured, it originated from this YouTube series of interviews, uploaded by nolabels.org. (See beginning around 53:26 for the segment from which this photo appears to have been taken.)  JohnInDC (talk) 21:01, 4 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:MaccabeesWSU.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 ⚡  05:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Three of the of uploading editor's four photo uploads were copyvios, see User talk:Cs2984, and while I cannot find the source for this one, I suspect it was likewise taken from a third party source without permission. JohnInDC (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also NB - this editor also appears sometimes to upload his own images on top of existing files previously uploaded by other editors - see User_talk:RHaworth - and this is one of them. So complete deletion of the file may not be appropriate, but instead just the problematic one.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:34, 4 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:Ryen5.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 ⚡  05:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Ryen5.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Ryen.jpg. Would qualify for fair use at Richard Ryen. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it would be legitimate fair use. Was he in any of the trailers or any movies that are now PD?  I'm not overly thrilled with using "fair use" movie screenshots in an infobox for the actor's article. --B (talk) 02:11, 4 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.