Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 20



File:Capri Juice Bottle.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 ⚡  21:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Capri Juice Bottle.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative work of copyrighted packaging. Stefan2 (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a fair use rationale, but one might question the benefit of the image to understanding the article. De728631 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a violation of WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What I said above. I guess we better delete it. De728631 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (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 ⚡ 17:07, 27 April 2013 (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:Niteroi regions.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 ⚡  06:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I'm not sure how this counts as PD-ineligble as a map is clearly an original work above the threshold of originality, PD exempt is plausible. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2013 (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:BostonSuspect1.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: Fair use. Per my closure at Possibly unfree files/2013 April 19. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:BostonSuspect1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Although this has been published by the FBI there is no evidence that the photo was actually taken by an FBI agent. It looks much more like a screenshot from a random CCTV, in which case I'm not sure about copyright status. De728631 (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Odds are exceptionally good that this is privately owned and the FBI is just using it. Without a clear statement to the contrary, I think we have to assume it is copyrighted and disallow PD being claimed here. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER
 * Delete FBI's page seems to tell that FBI wanted this man but had no idea where he was hiding. I fail to see how an FBI photographer would be able to take a photo of him under such circumstances. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Close this and claim fair use. Licensing template is clearly incorrect, but WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI apply. --hydrox (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to fairuse per hydrox -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not a CCTV image but was taken at street level (just look at it). I saw the photographer's name attributed in a photo caption earlier today although I have forgotten his name. I think he was with Reuters or the Press Association. — O'Dea  (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to fairuse per Hydrox.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to fairuse per Hydrox Pollack man34 (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fair use does not apply. Apteva (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair use should work under NFCI #10: "pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." De728631 (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If converted to a fair-use claim, what would the claimed purpose of the image be? The general "deceased persons" principle is applicable to cases where we use images primarily as portraits, i.e. to show what the person looked like. However, for that purpose, we have other images that are both of better quality and less copyright-infringing, because they are sourced to the subject himself or his family. Or would the purpose be to demonstrate what the nature of the initial published evidence was last Thursday? In that case, I'd say a verbal description would be quite sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You've got a point there. De728631 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as PD, per my comment here. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  17:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It has already been speculated above that this was not a CCTV image at all. And while there are obvious CCTV shots available they're even more blurry and wouldn't be of any use. De728631 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as fair use image of a deceased person. This is a historically significant image representing the subject in his moment of greatest notability. Ray  Talk 19:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * wrote that the image was taken by Reuters or by the Press Association. Images by press agencies can't be kept under fair use claims unless they are used in an article about the photo itself. See WP:NFC §7. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he wrote that he saw it with a caption attributing the immediate sourcing of it to Reuters or some press service. It's standard practice for newspapers to put the service they immediately got the photo from in the caption, which may not be the copyright holder. I've also seen it attributed to the AP and the FBI in different situations. Ray  Talk 00:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, it means that the image violates WP:NFC §10: non-free non-historical image of unknown origin. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just noting that this issue has come up before in much the same context (quoting from 2006 discussion): "I feel we should be able to use these images on Wikipedia, and I think policy should be altered to say this. Our policy currently allows just about no photographs of any terrorists (pre-captivity), since we don't usually know who took the photograph. It allows no stills from al-Qaida tapes, since, again, the person behind the camera is usually unknown. However, news sources routinely use these photographs with impunity, since a copyright-holder who doesn't want to be known as such will not sue for infringement. Even the FBI, in its publications, uses photographs of unknown (or unspecified) origin, for the same reason. (These are often tagged PD-USGov, but this is incorrect, since the FBI mere republished the images and did not create them.) I would recommend something like the following be added to the policy. 'In cases where the copyright-holder cannot be determined because he or she has intentionally evaded recognition, the work can be used without naming the copyright-holder.'"
 * I'd add that while we quite reasonably want to protect copyright in orphaned works, where the FBI has obtained and published a photograph from the copyright-holder and that person has chosen not to assert his right (yet), we do no legal harm to his interests by including the image here (provided it satisfies the other fair use criteria) that cannot be cured later if he were to make himself known. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per non-free fair use since this person is deceased but he's at the scene of the crime. Its of historic significance and is used in the subject's article here: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2013 (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:BostonSuspect2.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: Fair use. Per my closure at Possibly unfree files/2013 April 19. I am not commenting on the whether this is valid fair use or not; that can be a separate discussion. However, I will point out that a widely used exemption to WP:NFC is when it is essentially impossible to snap a photograph, such as when a person is incarcerated. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:BostonSuspect2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

If it is published by the FBI, it is public domain. Pollack man34 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although this has been published by the FBI there is no evidence that the photo was actually taken by an FBI agent. It seems to be a professional portrait photo but has the FBI or any other federal US agency taken a recent image of Tsarnaev before the brothers became suspects in the bombing case? This is most likely a private photo that has either been confiscated or given to the FBI. De728631 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to fairuse per Hydrox Pollack man34 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Boston Suspect Photos
 * Actually, no. To be in the public domain, a photograph has to be a work of the US government. A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." E.g. NASA hosts a lot of images on their websites that were taken by third-party photographers and institutions, and those images are not public domain either and are regularly deleted from Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Same argument as above, there is no evidence it is public domain. Just because the FBI uses it, that does not strip the property rights of the copyright owner.  Technically, the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees this.  FBI is using it, they don't own it.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The photograph is possibly not in the public domain, but at the moment its use is clearly okay under fair use. This is likely to be the defining picture of the subject for quite some time (at least until he becomes available for other pictures), and it would detract greatly from our articles on the events to lose it. I would suggest we shelve this discussion until later. Ray  Talk 20:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The absence of an illustration for a Wikipedia article is a minor inconvenience and does not trump copyright law. — O'Dea  (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyright law allows for fair use, hence the lack of lawsuits against the media for publishing images of criminal suspects - that this picture is legal under fair use is open and shut. Our policies and guidelines are a touch more stringent, and in this case I was addressing my comments on how to interpret them in that light. Ray  Talk 19:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You asserted that "it would detract greatly from our articles ... to lose" the picture (my italics), but that is exaggeration. Furthermore the desire (not requirement) for illustration cannot lead to law-breaking. If the case for fair use was "open and shut" this discussion would not be necessary. — O'Dea  (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete FBI's page seems to tell that FBI wanted this man but had no idea where he was hiding. I fail to see how an FBI photographer would be able to take a photo of him under such circumstances. Also, this is more or less a duplicate of File:Dzhokhar Tsarnayev.jpg. Although there are minor differences preventing WP:CSD, I don't see any need to keep both of them around. See also the discussion about this photo at WP:NFCR. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Close this and modify the image description to fair use. The licensing info is clearly incorrect, but no point in deleting the file as it can be used under fair use (see WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI). The image might have to be downscaled, though. --hydrox (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI publishes a free image sometime soon, so this presumably violates WP:NFCC. See the {{subst:rfu}} tag for the otehr copy of this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to fairuse per hydrox -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Convert to fairuse per Hydrox.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Convert to fairuse per Hydrox Pollack man34 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Accept under fair use, but only for the next few days. The person is in federal custody, and it is near 100% certain that a fully free, FBI-produced mugshot will be created and published within the next hours or days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fair use does not apply. Apteva (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. He still living, fair use doesn't apply here. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  17:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Still alive, fair use does not apply. Image is also not the subject of commentary in the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This subject is alive so the image cannot be kept. Fair use is not feasible. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2013 (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:KMS ent2.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, looks like the copyright violation--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:KMS ent2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Hi. Is this file really free? It is used in Kerio Connect article and its caption reads: "Screenshot of Kerio's Entourage support". If it is a screenshot of Kerio Connect, then it is not free. But can anyone tell for sure? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Codename Lisa (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2013 (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:Ballgame1890.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 ⚡  06:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Ballgame1890.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence that the uploader is at least 123 years old as would be required to support the authorship claim. No evidence that it is a published photograph, so PD-1923 can't automatically be assumed. Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2013 (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:Downside1910.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 ⚡  06:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Downside1910.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence that the uploader is at least 103 years old as would be required to support the authorship claim. No evidence that it is a published photograph, so PD-1923 can't automatically be assumed. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2013 (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:ABRAS 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 ⚡  06:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Institutional logo not likely to be free. Eeekster (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reduce resolution for fair use. Apteva (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair use won't work here; the logo is present in an article about a different organisation, so there's no fair use claim. -- Dianna (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2013 (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.