Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 29



File:Nalakafromgoogle.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 F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  07:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * File name contains "from google" implying the uploader is not the owner. Exif data supports the possibility this was downloaded from a website. Eeekster (talk) 01:42, 29 August 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:Am-falls-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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Am-falls-map.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The source of the embedded map is most likely "Google maps". Niklem (talk) 10:14, 29 August 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:Old Polmont.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 ⚡  04:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * The user name of the uploader, User:JohnJohnJohnJohn, suggests that the uploader is called John. However, the EXIF tells that the copyright holder is called Alan. Stefan2 (talk) 10:50, 29 August 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:Law-Ruth 001.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: Keep. Dianna (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Law-Ruth 001.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * According to the licence tag, this was published before 1923. However, no publication is listed, neither on the file information page nor in any of the sources. The file information page claims that the photo was taken in 1917 (which does not guarantee publication before 1923), but I can't find any evidence of this in the sources indicated. The sources don't seem to indicate any year of creation. Stefan2 (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This source confirms publication in 1919. -- Dianna (talk) 21:49, 16 September 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:Joe-craven-fls.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: Deleted copyright revision and restored original file. Dianna (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Joe-craven-fls.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Two files in one. The current one seems to be a copyright violation, see . Stefan2 (talk) 11:01, 29 August 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:DeanElgarPic.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 ⚡  04:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * It says that the photo is in the public domain because of lack of copyright formalities, meaning that the photo was published in the United States before the subject of the photo was two years old. However, the subject of the photo looks much older than two years old. Stefan2 (talk) 11:17, 29 August 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:DarrenPrinceWithClients.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 ⚡  04:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Seems to be cropped from a different image: Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 29 August 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:Choc. cream pie.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: withdrawn Credible explanation given. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Choc. cream pie.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Something is fishy here. The image was also uploaded to Flickr a few days before it was uploaded here. However, Flickr has no EXIF (unlike Wikipedia). Wikipedia file information page tells that the image was taken using a Panasonic Lumix FH5, but EXIF tells that the image was taken using a Sony DSC-W220. Stefan2 (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A bot auto-marked it as I added the photo as a regular CC atribution (not my work), though I meant to click the CC attribution (own work), as the photo is mine, and so I corrected that, so I'm not sure why it should be listed, as the copyright status isn't unclear nor disputed. As well, I have a flicr account that I put it on, and the sony was my old camera, I though the photo was a newer one from my panasonic, and I only uploaded it recently after some editing. Hope you understand. Thanks.ɱ	 17:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you want visual proof, you can find it here- http://i.imgur.com/mSjhU.jpg .ɱ	 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * question - what is the purpose of all +610 pages of images Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 17:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * sorry, I don't follow you. Where are 610 pages of images?ɱ	 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned, apologies. User:Multichill/Free_uploads. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 18:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is easy to quickly find obvious copyvios (for example - logos) Bulwersator (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just saw that myself. Some guy is apparently uploading a bunch, I don't know why either.ɱ	 18:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ɱ (talk • contribs)
 * 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:1970 Atlanta Pop Festival program.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: Keep with corrected template. Dianna (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:1970 Atlanta Pop Festival program.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Dubious own work: festival programme. Stefan2 (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch. My mistake.  I must have been tired.  Even though the document has no copyright symbol, it is not my work other than to say that I bought the program and tickets and scanned them.  Is there any other option that can be used?  If not, I agree that the image(s) should be deleted.Kenneth C Gass (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Retag with PD-US-no notice. Nyttend (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you checked that there is no copyright notice on some other page, for example on the back of the document? It says that something was enclosed, so I take it that this document was placed in an envelope together with other documents. Would it be enough if at least one document in the envelope had a copyright notice, since they were distributed together? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The other side is a hand-drawn crude map and there is no copyright notice anywhere on the document. The other document referenced was the ticket, wwhich also lacks copyright notice on either side.  The ticket (minus the part for the first day) is the other document I posted.  I bought the tickets, which included the program and nothing else, in advance of the festival.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethcgass (talk • contribs) 20:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested retagging based upon Kenneth's statement that there wasn't a program. Anyway, you couldn't put copyright notices in random places and expect them to be enforced; you had to put the notice on the copyrighted work itself, in a place where one would expect to find it.  Hiding it by itself on the back quite possibly wouldn't count, and putting it only on the envelope or on another document in the envelope definitely wouldn't.  Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 31 August 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:Treeline in Autumn.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: withdrawn Credible explanation given. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Treeline in Autumn.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Camera model on file information page doesn't match camera model in EXIF. Also here with different EXIF information. Stefan2 (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Same problem as the other two marked on this page, but this one and the one under it you can just delete for all I care, I don't need them.ɱ	 17:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ɱ (talk • contribs)
 * 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:Yard.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: withdrawn Credible explanation given (see discussions above). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Yard.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * File information page says Panasonic camera, EXIF says Sony camera. Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 29 August 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:Tim Omundson.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 ⚡  00:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tim_Omundson.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 13:02, 29 August 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:D&M-Viking1.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: Keep. Dianna (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:D& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * File without verifiable source, unused Bulwersator (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * which part of this picture makes you think that it is from a different source than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sheep2_small.jpg Logos5557 (talk) 07:17, 30 August 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:OneBeLo at KEXP.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 ⚡  00:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * File:OneBeLo at KEXP.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Tagged, but Flickr source page says this photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license. "NonCommercial" and "NoDerivs" are not free enough for Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 18:11, 29 August 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:Run for Freedom logo.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 ⚡  00:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Run for Freedom logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * "I created this logo 2 years ago when working for run for freedom." does not mean that you have copyright to this image Bulwersator (talk) 18:35, 29 August 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:TewksburyIssues.JPG
<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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Tagged, but source page says at the bottom, "Copyright © 2011. [TewksburyIssues] All rights reserved." —Bkell (talk) 18:36, 29 August 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:The Two Roads Chart.jpg
<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 F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * File:The Two Roads Chart.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * "This file is in the public domain, because It is an evangelistic chart designed for public dissemination" is not true. +it is unused Bulwersator (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Delete it Journalist492 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 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:Brian Kelsey.jpg
<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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Marked as a work of the U.S. federal government with the note "Who created this image? Government agency photographer in January 2011. Who holds the copyright to this image? No one: the image is property of the government and is not subject to copyright law. Where did this image come from? From the office of Senator Brian Kelsey, who authorized it's uploading to Wikipedia." However, the image is presumably by the Tennessee government, as marked in the metadata. In that case, it is not automatically public domain, and we need evidence of permission from the Senator's office, showing that it was released under a free license (allowing commercial reuse and modification) by someone with authority to do so. &mdash;innotata 19:28, 29 August 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:Ian-macpherson.jpg
<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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Ian-macpherson.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Permission goes to Creative Commons license for CC-BY-NC-ND, but the license tag is CC-BY. David  1217  What I've done 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that the original photographer released the pic under either of these licenses. Image appears on his website, where I found no releases under license. -- Dianna (talk) 23:06, 16 September 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:Finished With My Ex band performing on radio showcase.jpg
<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 discussion was: Keep with addition of appropriate templates. Dianna (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Finished With My Ex band performing on radio showcase.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Apparently from the band's Facebook page without evidence of permission. {{subst:npd}} keeps getting deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, because "available online" is not an appropriate source, and the uploader's choice of the "Uploading a free file from somebody else" at upload is a further indication that this is the work of someone other than the uploader. No evidence of permission anywhere, either.  Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The uploader arranged so that the image is available as CC-BY-SA. See discussion at User talk:Stefan2. The web site he talks about is this one. It now says "All images are released under a Creative Commons License (CC BY-SA) and music (BY-NC-SA)". Is it a problem that there is no version number specified? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's obviously the same image as the one seen in the Flash animation at http://finishedwithmyex.wix.com/finishedwithmyex#!__page-0/ouvir, so there's no copyright-based reason to delete. All cc-by-sa licenses are acceptable, and when version numbers aren't specified, we can just tag with cc-by-sa.  Thanks for working with the uploader!  Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello there! i talked to sefan2 and I believe the problem with the image it is solved... He told me "I think it is fine now". Can anyone remove that warning on the images page please? (don't know if I can do that by myself)... User:Salgado96
 * 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.