Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 October 10



File:Hermie 2.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 as F3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Hermie 2.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Author [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hermie_2.png&diff=prev&oldid=452011070 wrote] that derivative works of this image are prohibited, thus contradicting both licenses on the image page (evidently added simply to fulfill image policy requirements) and making this image unsuitable for Wikipedia. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just as you can dual license under the GFDL and CC, even though they have some contradictory elements. (Some Wikimedia photographers even license their photos in a non-free way for money to big media companies who don't want to comply with GFDL or CC). You have a triple license here: one that they made up, basically "do anything you want but ND," CC-BY 2.5, and GFDL 1.2+. All we require is that at least one license is Free by our definition, and they can license it under whatever other licenses they want. It's the same reason we allow non-commercial CC, given GFDL. Their ND restriction on this doesn't prevent us from using it any more than a CC-BY-NC prevents us from using it under GFDL commercially. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless we can get confirmation from the uploader that the terms of the licenses have been understood and agreed to. If the uploader specifically says "do not make any changes to it" on the file description page, that indicates to me that the uploader has not really understood and agreed to the terms of the CC and GFDL licenses, even if those tags were mechanically placed on the description page. For a precedent, see Possibly unfree files/2011 February 6. —Bkell (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is pretty clear that the status of these two images are the same, so let's direct all discussion below. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:40, 10 October 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:Hermie 1.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 as F3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Hermie 1.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Author wrote that derivative works of this image are prohibited, thus contradicting both licenses on the image page (evidently added simply to fulfill image policy requirements) and making this image unsuitable for Wikipedia. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just as you can dual license under the GFDL and CC, even though they have some contradictory elements. (Some Wikimedia photographers even license their photos in a non-free way for money to big media companies who don't want to comply with GFDL or CC). You have a triple license here: one that they made up, basically "do anything you want but ND," CC-BY 2.5, and GFDL 1.2+. All we require is that at least one license is Free by our definition, and they can license it under whatever other licenses they want. It's the same reason we allow non-commercial CC, given GFDL. Their ND restriction on this doesn't prevent us from using it any more than a CC-BY-NC prevents us from using it under GFDL commercially. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless we can get confirmation from the uploader that the terms of the licenses have been understood and agreed to. If the uploader specifically says "do not make any changes to it" on the file description page, that indicates to me that the uploader has not really understood and agreed to the terms of the CC and GFDL licenses, even if those tags were mechanically placed on the description page. For a precedent, see Possibly unfree files/2011 February 6. —Bkell (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's hardly a precedent. First of all there's so little participation that it doesn't have any future relevance. But in any case, these are different. Regardless of the file description page, the montage is likely to be made up of non-free images. Moreover, the assertions are much more strongly worded: "No one has the right," "I do not allow," etc. This one merely says "do not make any changes to it," which I seem to think is just a courtesy request. We'll just not make any changes to it (even though we're legally allowed to - that's all that matters for free licensing), just like we don't edit an article when somebody puts in use on it. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right; "precedent" wasn't really the right word. I only meant to point out a similar situation that had come up in the past. Still, the explicit phrase "do not make any changes to it" strongly suggests to me that the uploader didn't understand that the terms of the licenses whose tags he placed on the file description page allow unrestricted modification; that seems much more likely to me than the interpretation that the uploader was somehow "multi-licensing" his upload with that phrase. If it was the uploader's intent to prohibit modification of this image, which seems to be the case, then I don't think we can claim that he intentionally and freely licensed the image, even if he added some codes to the file description page that seem to say he did. We can't "trap" him in some kind of legal snare here by saying, "You added the tags, so you licensed your image, whether you meant to or not." It seems to me that such an unintentional "license" would be unsupportable in court, since a "reasonable man" would see that the intent of the uploader was to prohibit modification. But of course I am not a lawyer, so don't take any of what I am saying here to be correct in any legal sense. —Bkell (talk) 19:30, 10 October 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:Amend Constitution2.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 ⚡  02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Amend Constitution2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence of permission. But even if permission were given, it would still be unenyclopedic because the corresponding article was deleted at AfD recently King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:38, 10 October 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:Ali Mardan Khan.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 ⚡  02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Ali Mardan Khan.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader claims it is his or her own work, but also says the image was "originally captured from the dailytimes.com.pk website." —Bkell (talk) 06:19, 10 October 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:Babbit and Catstello.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 ⚡  02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Babbit and Catstello.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * As a color cartoon still, it's quite unlikely this was first published prior to 1923. The article seems to support that this is a newer image, and thus subject to copyright. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: There were a few Looney Tunes shorts for which Warner Bros. failed to renew the copyright and which are therefore in the public domain (for example, Falling Hare). So it's possible, though unlikely, that this still is from one of those. But unless we have some positive confirmation that this is the case, we must assume it is copyrighted. —Bkell (talk) 14:52, 10 October 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:General Işık Koşaner.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 ⚡  02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:General Işık Koşaner.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Photograph sourced to a NATO website, but with a public domain tag claiming it is from a UN source. No further information about copyright status. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 10 October 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:Francisco (2).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 ⚡  02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Francisco (2).JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * All other uploads by this user appear to be derivative works (e.g., scans of newspapers, a picture of a photo on the wall). The uploader hasn't described in sufficient detail how he could be the copyright holder of this very old photograph. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:00, 10 October 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:Katie McGrath having a quick hair fix.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 ⚡  02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Katie McGrath having a quick hair fix.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This image is attributed to a Wikia project and is tagged with . However, the licensing information for Wikia says only that text is licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0; it says that non-text files may not be freely licensed. There is no information on the file description page of the source wiki about the licensing status of this photograph. —Bkell (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From wikia.com: "Non-text media on Wikia should not be assumed to be available under the same license as the text. Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file". There is no licensing statement on the file page countering the CC_BY_SA 3.0 coverall. --  fg T C  21:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; we shouldn't trust copyright statements on fan sites like that, even if there was one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have contacted the uploader of the image to wikia.com asking for further details. Please wait to see the results of this request. --  fg T C  22:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I recently declined a CSD:F9 as it pointed to a later and poorer quality derivative of this image on tumblr.com, and I've been having a long look on the web. The image was taken on 8th April 2010. There is a reduced size copy at http://merlin-series.ru/photos-merlin/412-foto-3-sezona.html dated 16/4/2010; there is a smaller composite at http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/katie-mcgrath?before=1312739456 (http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpk57mVuqa1qe67uk.jpg)- no idea of date but image is lower quality and size. And a final version at http://www.fanforum.com/f343/morgana|katie-mcgrath-9-youre-very-fashionable-lady-bradley-62987040/index10.html - a copy of the wikia one. Only the wikia one and the later copy have EXIF data. Not sure where that leaves us, I see the choice of
 * The photographer uploaded a small version to the Russian site 8 days after taking and then the full version to Wikia 7 months later - but why does the small Russian one not have any EXIF data - the big one shows he's editing on a Mac with Photoshop, logic says he would use the same software to reduce.
 * There was a web image put up around the time of the original photo, and stayed on the web for, say, a year. The Russian one and the Wikia ones are just copies.
 * There is some printed image available - the wikia one is is a photgraphed image of that print. 1/40sec at F2.8 with the flash turned off - to me is a bit suspect for a "real" photo.
 * Anyway, those are my thoughts, make of them what you will.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! That's some serious research. Makes me feel quite lazy. I did try to find other copies to track its origin and found nothing useful. I'm impressed. The only file I did find that I thought might shed some light on things was at the claimed website of the wikia user who uploaded this image to wikia. There are some collages of Merlin cast and crew images. Within one of the collages there is a cropped copy of the file in question here. Beneath the image it reads "All images are © BBC" so, if we are to assume the worst and act accordingly we must assume this image was never free to use. I will therefore delete the file and search for another. This is not a tantrum. I feel fine. Roll on round two! ;) --  fg T C  13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm. It seems I can't delete it. I removed it from Katie_McGrath. I'll have to leave the deletion part to an Admin. --  fg T <sup style="color:#00aaaa;">C  13:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have contacted Katie McGrath's agent and am in the process of working with them to supply images and details for all their clients (Quite an impressive list). They are keen that their clients are properly represented and are happy to provide images and details suitable for Wikipedia. --  fg <sup style="color:#00aaaa;">T <sup style="color:#00aaaa;">C  13:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't heard back from Katie McGrath's agent yet and have a sneaking suspicion I probably won't. I may try phoning again sometime. In the meantime, I note that the file I uploaded has still not been deleted. Considering the fuss it caused; Perhaps someone with the power to do so might wan't to zap it? --  fg <sup style="color:#00aaaa;">T <sup style="color:#00aaaa;">C  20:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The user at wikia.com answerd my query about the file source here. FYI --  fg <sup style="color:#00aaaa;">T <sup style="color:#00aaaa;">C  06:07, 22 October 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:Harding University logo.png
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 F5 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Harding University logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Now orphaned file (replaced by File:HardingUniversity logo.svg, with full FUR).  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:51, 10 October 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.