Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 May 31



File:Princess Diana wedding dress.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 discussion was: Keep.- F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Princess Diana wedding dress.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * the source is dead and a tineye reverse search  shows that it's most likely from the official royal site which is under crown copyright and the instructions at their reuse page have to be followed for any reuse of their images  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 15 June 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:Abide.jpeg

 * 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, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Image artwork is clearly book cover, but there is no indication the uploader is the copyright owner. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:07, 31 May 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 National Trust - Sherborne Park Estate.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, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * File:The National Trust - Sherborne Park Estate.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

There is also a concern about the status of the National Trust logo included in this image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2D sign, which is not automatically subject to FoP rights in the UK,
 * 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:Ant-heap White 9177 Willis CK 2009-10-24 Limpopo.png and File:Ant-heap White larva 6160 Sharp IC & A 2009-04-19 Limpopo.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. IMHO, the copyright status of the files is still not clear. Thanks Drilnoth for going through the hassle to obtain permissions. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Ant-heap White 9177 Willis CK 2009-10-24 Limpopo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

This page of the Virtual Museum website says that the pages are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA, which is not compatible with Wikipedia because of the "NC" part, and the page where the image is actually from doesn't say anything different.

Also nominated for the same reason:
 * File:Ant-heap White larva 6160 Sharp IC & A 2009-04-19 Limpopo.jpg (source)

I'm also suspicious of the other files he uploaded that start with "Ant-heap", but I couldn't find them in the database. Based on image metadata and the like, I'm inclined to think that he took most of the images he's uploaded, I'm just a little concerned about these two, especially since the databases don't appear to credit him. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "He" (me) has had email permission from Mr. Willis and Mr. Sharp to use the images. Both stated that the pictures could be used as long as acknowledgement was given to them as the authors. The other images of Ant-heap Whites on the page were taken by "him" (me) Michaelwild (Purves, M.). If you would like me to find and forward the emails - my email is michaelmozzie@hotmail.com. Michaelwild (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll send you an email. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've received the forwarded emails. For File:Ant-heap White larva 6160 Sharp IC & A 2009-04-19 Limpopo.jpg, the author stated that he has "no problem with you using my photos as long as i am given credit for the photographs." I've updated the licensing on that image to reflect this. However, it is unclear as to whether the author meant for Wikipedia-only use or for any-website type use; I'll leave that determination up to further discussion and the closing admin, but I would now be inclined to keep that image.
 * File:Ant-heap White 9177 Willis CK 2009-10-24 Limpopo.png is a little trickier; the author said (when asked if the images could be used on Wikipedia). "No problem, it would be an honour. Please just send me copies of the pages where you use my pics." I don't rightly know whether he was making the "send me a copy..." thing a request or a requirement (which I don't think Wikipedia allows), and he also doesn't specify whether or not the images need to be attributed to him or not. Due to the ambiguity, I would still be inclined to delete this image, because it is better to delete an image with significantly uncertain copyright status than it is to keep it and violate copyright.
 * I'm fully open to further discussion on the original comments if wanted. Also, a note for Michaelwild: In the future, when requesting permission, it would be a good idea to follow the steps outlined at Requesting copyright permission. The process discussed there explains how to request permission in a way which will ensure the licensing is correct, thereby avoiding this sort of thing in the future. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:58, 31 May 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.