Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 19



File:Daman e Koh Park.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 ⚡  02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Daman e Koh Park.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Claim is "own image", there is a version (earlier date) at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mafimushkala/121096224/. I declined the CSD as the flickr is 640x480 and when I upsized it to 800x600, it just was not quite as sharp (Photoshop7), but it is possible that it might have been upsized by some other program - OR both images come from somewhere else. Uploader is long gone. Note following file is from same uploader.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The size on flickr is not just 640px, thats incorrect. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/121096224_a25bf15e85_o.jpg. Please not rebut requests based on incorrect information. --Martin H. (talk) 11:10, 19 November 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:Margallla Hills.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 ⚡  02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Claim is "own image", there is a version (earlier date) at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahsan-rashid/150922306/. I declined the CSD as the flickr is 594x640 and when I upsized it to 742x800, it just was not quite as sharp (Photoshop7), but it is possible that it might have been upsized by some other program - OR both images come from somewhere else. Uploader is long gone Note preceding file is from same uploader.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Its incorrect that the flickr version is 594x640, 594x640 is only the version that you klicked on. Maybe an expired pro account that the full size is not directly reachable from the flickr interface, but it is still there at http://farm1.static.flickr.com/28/150922306_1267eec6c8_o.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 11:06, 19 November 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:Foster1.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, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Foster1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Photo of convicted con-man Peter Foster addressing the media. Tagged as 'released by copyright holder' but I have a couple of concerns:


 * Summary says "provided by subject - no copyright". I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
 * Appears to have been taken at a press conference. If this is the case, copyright likely to be owned by a media agency, not by Foster.
 * Article has a long history of sneaky bad-faith editing by SPAs attempting to turn it into a puff piece on "Peter Foster, International Playboy". SPAs have been caught several times fabricating sources, impersonating journalists, etc, so there is a high risk of deliberate misrepresentation.
 * Photo was added by a SPA around the time when pro-Foster puffery was rife.
 * Even if the editor themselves is genuine, they appear to have relied on Foster's word that he was the copyright holder. Given Foster's criminal record, that seems unsafe.

Tineye finds the same photo on two other sites: Foster's own webpage, and an old 'Pink News' article that seems to predate its appearance on Wikipedia. GenericBob (talk) 00:06, 19 November 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:Ballwiki3.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, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Ballwiki3.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * I declined this as possibly PD-art, with the likely vain hope it can be salvaged. In order to do so, we will have to prove this painting is in the public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I originally tagged this one. I could not find any link as to the age of the image, not even looking at pages at same time of upload helped - it never seems to have been used in an article. Having yet another good look, I start to wonder if it is just a painting - File:Ballwiki4.jpg, File:Ballwiki5.jpg, File:Ballwiki7.jpg all have similar edit summaries and are pictures of people in wacky attires in the art gallery - I think the girl on the left is a real person, with painting(s) behind.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:00, 2 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:EmilioVieyra.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, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * As it stands, the image page doesn't provide enough information to prove that this image was published at least 20 years ago, and created at least 25 years ago. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:34, 19 November 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:FernandoAyala.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, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * see my reasoning above; is there any way to assuage reasonable doubt that this image was published before 20 years ago? The uploader only stated it was created circa 1950s. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:37, 19 November 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:RaulBernao.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, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * see above (ditto) Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:38, 19 November 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:Printz.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 F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Printz.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The US freedom of panorama only applies to buildings and not to signs, right? Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was a little bit lazy in choosing the subject for the pic and documenting it, there is not much else in the park to photograph, and a photo is needed because of the site's National Historic Landmark status. Two arguments to consider: 1) the sign constitutes about 20% of the photo so might be considered de minimus. 2) The sign was dedicated (i.e. published) on April 9, 1988 (see here). According to the Cornell copyright site US publications published "1978 to 1 March 1989 - Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years. None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities"  There is no copyright notice on the sign as required (the blurry part is simply "1988" without the (C) ), and there is no reason to believe that the PHMC registered a copyright within 5 years, as they go to great efforts to make the text available to the public.  If you know of a way to check these "delayed registrations" I'd be glad to do it.  Or I could e-mail the PHMC, but I'd expect an answer of "You got to be kidding, why would we do something like that?  I don't have the time ..."  Any feedback appreciated.  Smallbones (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyright laws have so many special cases. It would be nice if the sign is in the public domain, since I see how I could use the photo on Swedish Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If anybody has any knowledge of a "delayed registration" database for publicly displayed signs, please let me know, and I'll check it out ASAP. This could theoretically free up all PHMC (Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission) signs from before 1 March 1989.  I do know that there is a copyright renewal database for books and have used it.  A bit clunky, but actually not that many books on it.  But for this we'd need the specialized database for non-book delayed registrations (there actually might be ~ 0 records in it!).  I could go to the PHMC with a general request about delayed registrations, but I'd guess they'd need a lawyer to sign off and it would be a very low priority for them.  Smallbones (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This was hashed out on Commons already - see Commons:Category talk:Historical markers in Pennsylvania, where it was decided this is free (though the shape of the marker is trademarked, so it should have a trademark tag). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! I've added some extra templates (PD-US-1989 and trademarked) and explanations. If someone knows how to close the listing, I could move the image to Commons so that I can use it on Swedish Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 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:File_name.ext

 * 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace " " with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after " ". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * File:File name.ext ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * reason 141.0.9.1 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 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:Denverairportmural.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, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Picture of copyrighted mural (could it be a fair-use file?):Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 20:01, 19 November 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:KBHM Route Map.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:KBHM Route Map.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:KBHM Route Map.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:14, 19 November 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:Killola at Cafe de Paris London England.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, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Killola at Cafe de Paris London England.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader has uploaded copyvios to Wikimedia Commons claiming they are under free licenses, so I think it should be checked if this file is really under a free license. Rosenzweig (talk) 23:42, 19 November 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.