Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 April 17



File:WHOdeterminantsframework.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 ⚡  02:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * This file is copyright by the WHO and not in the public domain. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (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:Infanteducation.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 ⚡  00:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * WHO files are not in the public domain Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 17 April 2012 (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:Lessthan2.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 F4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Lessthan2.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * WHO files not in the public domain Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 17 April 2012 (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:Battle 12.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: marked fair use. I've decided that the claim of a free photo from Flickr is credible, but the figurines are copyrighted. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Battle 12.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence of permission. Kelly  hi! 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this is similar to another 40K photo. I uploaded the file ~3 years ago in good faith. In the interim flickr has changed their url structure (or the account was deleted) so the original pointers no longer apply. However it is different in two respects. First, it is being used right now in a wikipedia article (unlike battle 1). Second it is less focused on the figurines than battle 1 (blunting the derivative work argument) and more focused on the arrangement of layers, terrain and measurement stuff. If we accept that the file was originally uploaded as CC-BY-SA, we shouldn't also be talking about deleting over other non-free issues. On the subject of permission, outside links change. Links to websites rot, user accounts get moved and what pointed to a resource in 2008 might not mean anything in 2012. This problem will only get worse with age. We cannot legitimately expect all files to have a live, current link to another copy of the material indicating the release of copyright in perpetuity. The rest of the web doesn't work like that. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we can't just accept an assertion on the license, we need some kind of evidence. This is exactly why images of this type should be uploaded at Commons - there is a license review process in place to prevent loss of the image in these situations. Kelly  hi! 20:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I literally can't travel back in time to a point when the flickr page existed. If you know a commons admin you can look through the deletion log for this, this or this (one of which is identical to the photo above, I believe). All of these photos are from the same flickr user who released them under an appropriate license. The deleted edits on commons should include a flickr tagging bot which accepted the claim. I moved them over to wikipedia because commons has a stricter interpretation of derivative works than wikipedia (in practice if not in text) and frankly, they are assholes. Protonk (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would recommend rewording the comment above, as many (most?) of the people who work with images and copyrights here also work with them at Commons (including me). Kelly  hi! 16:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. I'm not really inclined to do that, given that the comment accords with my experience. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the three deleted files on Commons. They were all Flickr reviewed but they were not identical to the photo above. I think that it is likely that the Flickr license was free but the question still remains if it is a derivative work or not. One way to test is to add a black dot over all the figures and see if the photo will still be usable. If yes then the figures are not the important. If no then the figures are important. --MGA73 (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No Evidence of the item being on Flickr. Either the image is copyrighted and must be removed, or permissions/licenses of the image must be changed.  Obtund  22:36, 15 June 2012 (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:Davisnitzberg.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 ⚡  02:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Promotional photo requires proof of ownership but no evidence of permission by creator of photo. Jay Tepper (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2012 (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.