Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 24



File:Student Mentor 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 ⚡  21:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Student Mentor logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is clearly a logo, so I'm skeptical about it being a self-made logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 24 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:Rev. and Mrs. Latta.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. Illustrations by the Tucker Engraving Company. Dianna (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Rev. and Mrs. Latta.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta birthplace.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta children.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Rev. Latta.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta giving speech.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta Chapel and Young Men& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta Young Ladies Dormitory.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta kindergarten department.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta industrial department.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta Manual Training Department.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta orphanage band.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta University faculty and students.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta faculty 1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Latta faculty.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The source goes directly to the image, so the claim that this was published before 1923 is unverifiable. Looks like a scan of a book, but there is no way to tell which book or when it was published. Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * not unverifiable, but unverified. email them Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge ⇔ †@1₭ 13:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the uploader's responsibility to provide sufficient information to verify the copyright status of the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * i see you've gone to the betacommand school of "adversive leadership". yes it was the uploader's responsibility 5 years ago to anticipate the change in policy, and to proactively comply with all possible future policies. since this editor hasn't edited in 3 years, it is not reasonable to expect a response. aren't you counting on that in your deletion pantomime with the long gone? isn't it more reasonable to expect that persons espousing a policy to then implement it retroactively on the backlog? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge ⇔ †@1₭ 14:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is no way to verify the copyright status, then we simply can't keep the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * i gave you a way. shifting the burden on others, is a rhetorical trick of the lazy. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge ⇔ †@1₭ 14:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Published 1903 in Raleigh, NC, therefore public domain . If Slowking put 10% of the effort he devotes to invective into genuinely competent searching instead, most of the disputes he inflames would be cleared up. This required only a very simple Google search. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is true (Google tells me that there is "No eBook available"), then it should be fine to keep the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per HW's findings. We routinely grandfather images that were acceptable when they were uploaded; why should these be different?  Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 26 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:Ericheinze portrait1.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; uploader has created other images to replace this one. While those may be similarly questionable, that indicates to me that we're not likely to get a permissions e-mail on this one. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Ericheinze portrait1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

I have personal permission from the copyright holder, Eric Heinze, to duplicate the image from his academic page on this article. He can be contacted at [email address available] to verify this permission. Is this sufficient? GrumpyD (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It says that the uploader is the copyright holder, but other text on the page suggests that the uploader isn't the copyright holder and that there is some unverifiable Wikipedia-only permission which would put the image up for deletion per WP:CSD. Also, the image previously appeared at http://www.law.qmul.ac.uk/humanrights/about/members/index.html Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The permission needs to come from the copyright holder, and the copyright holder is more likely either the photographer or Heinze's employer. Additionally, you need to be able to do more with the image than just duplicating it in a Wikipedia article, and the permission needs to be sent to OTRS. See WP:CONSENT for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 24 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:Mashapaug Lake Bathymetry Map.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 ⚡  22:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Mashapaug Lake Bathymetry Map.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

Just because someone had past copyright violations does not mean that everything he uploads is also a copyright violation... That is false logic. The fact is that this image cannot be found anywhere else on the internet, and thus there is nothing to back up the idea that I did not draw this map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesnowyblizzard (talk • contribs) 15:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dubious if the uploader really drew the map outlines as claimed as all other uploads by the user seem to be copyright violations. Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Absence on the Internet is no evidence that there is no copyright violation. This looks a bit like a scan of a paper, so it seems that this could easily be a scan of a printed map. Of course, you can't find all printed maps on the Internet. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well this image had not been labelled as a possibly unfree file until I had other images of mine removed for copyright violations... Therefore the only reason this image was tagged was because other images of mine were copyright violations. Thus, this image had been accepted as a work of my own until other images of mine were tagged for deletion. There were no other red flags to signify that this image was not a work of my own. Had I not uploaded those other images, this map would not have been tagged. The only reason that this map was tagged for being possibly unfree was that I happened to upload several other images which were copyright violations... This map is a completely legitimate image created by myself, and there are no concrete indications that this is not the case...  Even if this is a scanned image, it may be scanned from my own work. Thesnowyblizzard (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The image wasn't discovered until the other images popped up. That doesn't mean that this isn't a copyright violation and it doesn't address the issue that this looks like a scan of a paper map. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If the image wasn't discovered until the other images popped up, that means that this image was never considered to be suspicious in the first place... I'm sure this map had been examined, since any images that I uploaded that happened to be copyright violations were deleted very soon after I posted them. This image was only tagged for being possibly unfree once the other images were found to be copyright violations, and thus the idea that this map is an unfree image is solely based on the assumption that, if some of my images were copyright violations, then all of them must be. As you allude to, I doubt this image would be seen as suspicious had I not uploaded the other images. All this aside, the assertion that this image looks like a scan of a paper map in no way shows that I stole this image, since I could have done a scan off of my own map. Thesnowyblizzard (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, if the image wasn't discovered until the other images popped up, then it just means that it wasn't properly investigated until then. There are plenty of copyright violations which don't show up until several years after they were uploaded. Why did you the other images claiming that you were the photographer when you obviously weren't the photographer? Since your claim about those photos obviously was a lie, then why should your claim about this image be trusted? Why does this image look like a scan of a printed map? If you did draw this map yourself, then how did you draw it? Could you please post some evidence that you drew it, such as measurements of the area and GPS tracks or whatever tools you would normally use for drawing a map. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How about the image that I just uploaded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:March_2013_Nor%27easter,_Ashford,_CT.jpg)? If my claims about the other photos were "lies", then is the image that I just uploaded also a "lie"? It must be, considering that some of my other images were copyright violations, so I guess you should tag this image for deletion also. Thesnowyblizzard (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * An image uploaded by you is not necessarily a copyright violation. However, you haven't answered any of the questions above, so there is still no information about how you would have been able to draw the map. Why are you refusing to answer the question? Is the answer so simple that you can't answer my questions since you didn't draw the map? Note that the task isn't to show that the image is a copyright violation, but that there is no evidence that you made the map, and your refusal to answer my questions seems to indicate that you didn't draw the map. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I made this map while working at the Department of Environmental Protection for the state of Connecticut. I used data that had previously been collected. It was a map that was intended for use by the public, but I kept a copy for myself and decided to use it for this article. I really have no way of proving that this is my work. I can only say that a map with the depths of lakes illustrated would be an obscure thing to find, so I don't know why I would go out of my way to find a bathymetry map and then scan it just for a Wikipedia article. With the other copyright violations that I thought I could get away with for some reason, I certainly didn't go out of my way to find them. If you need concrete proof that I created this map myself, then just delete the image, it isn't that big of a deal. Thesnowyblizzard (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfree as copyrighted to Connecticut as a work for hire. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 23:18, 29 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:Dosojin1.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, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Dosojin1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Nethexe is actually me, Sandor Kiss Nethexe (talk) 14:03, 24 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:Foldanya.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:Foldanya.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No freedom of panorama in Japan. Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 24 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:Silkroadterakotta.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:Silkroadterakotta.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No freedom of panorama in Japan. From the 1970s according to Nándor Wagner. Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete because it is not eligible for FoP in the U.S. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:55, 25 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:Abdulbaset Sieda.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:Abdulbaset Sieda.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abdulbaset Sieda.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 24 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:Mario-and-luigi-dream-team-3-630x354.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: Non-free as currently tagged. Take to FFD if you feel there are issues with the new rationale. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Mario-and-luigi-dream-team-3-630x354.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Game screenshot. No evidence that Nintendō has published this under any free licence whatsoever. Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to fairuse the game article Mario & Luigi: Dream Team is missing a gameplay image -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:15, 25 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 ⚡ 17:11, 25 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:Tugboat Morania.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, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * It says that this photo was taken in 1957 and first published before 1923. Something is obviously wrong. Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment it doesn't say when it was taken, it says the ship was built in 1957. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is zero support for this photo, necessarily taken after 1957 construction, being an official government photo of a private vessel. The copyright notice is entirely unsupported. Neither is the credit at the source of much use relating to copyright. It is "Courtesy of Christopher Roehrig" who may be simply a provider rather than the photographer and copyright owner (No few of my ship and other photos have been provided third parties "Courtesy of" someone I've never heard of!). Palmeira (talk) 15:53, 29 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.