Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 August 14



File:La reina de México(The queen of Mexico-) 2013-08-13 10-41.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * File:La reina de México(The queen of Mexico-) 2013-08-13 10-41.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image is from a professional photoshoot, use status is unclear. See http://lovetelenovela.blogspot.ca/2013/07/blanca-soto-elegant-beauty-photoshoot.html. ... disco spinster   talk  02:17, 14 August 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:TrippPhotoAScott75.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; there's plenty of pixels, and exif data. Uploader asserts ownership. We have to AGF. Diannaa (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * File:TrippPhotoAScott75.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * no proof of ownership this image may be copyrighted Redsky89 (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Commnent Note that this quite obviously is copyrighted: either by the uploader or by someone else. We don't require works to be in the public domain.  No comment on the question of ownership.  Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 16 August 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:Ana Free Portrait Photograph.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 ⚡  11:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Ana Free Portrait Photograph.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * no proof of ownership other than own work this looks like a press photo and could be copyrighted. Redsky89 (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Quite obviously copyrighted; see my comments on File:TrippPhotoAScott75.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 16 August 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:PlanetEarth.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 ⚡  11:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Doubtful this is the uploaders own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom. Also, unable to determine original source, and image does not seem to appear anywhere on NASA.gov. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:37, 20 August 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:NewZealandPartyLogo.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 discussion was: not applicable. File is now tagged as non-free with rationale. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * File:NewZealandPartyLogo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is logo artwork, possibly above TOO in origin country. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Change licence to non-free logo, the bird shape is above TOO in the US. Fair use per WP:LOGO. January  ( talk ) 19:11, 18 August 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 ⚡ 04:04, 3 October 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:Sharp Billboard (Nicolson Road, Lahore)-c.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 ⚡  19:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Sharp Billboard (Nicolson Road, Lahore)-c.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This photo is a faithful representation of a billboard that is likely under copyright. Although Pakistan does have a liberal Freedom of Panorama law, it is doubtful that a billboard could be considered "permanent." See |discussion here, and also listing for a related file. Pete (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Why wouldn't it be considered permanent? Do the creators of billboard advertisements plan to take the advertisement out of the public eye for part of its life?  See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama, which notes that "permanent" includes ice sculptures that get exhibited out on the street in above-freezing temperatures: images of them are appropriate if taken in FoP countries if the owners meant them to stay there until they melt, because "permanent" means "for the life of the work".  Billboard designs get left in place until they're taken down and someone gets rid of them, or until they get destroyed by having another design pasted on top — billboard pictures (e.g. the advertising picture and words, as opposed to the wooden sign itself) aren't designed to be taken down and preserved somewhere else, and even if one were to be taken down after it was put up, placement counts as "permanent" unless the advertising company always planned to move the sign somewhere else. Pasting another sign on top of the first one is quite destructive (imagine trying to separate two pieces of paper that have been glued together), so it's definitely not a case of "relocation".  Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to understand FOP law on this level, so I really don't know which is the correct legal interpretation. But I do think it's also worth considering whether any educational purpose is served by hosting this file on Wikimedia servers. I don't see one, and think it could be deleted on those grounds, even if it is legal. -Pete (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read Commons:COM:FOP: "permanent" usually means that there is no fixed pre-defined end of exhibition date. An ice sculpture doesn't have any fixed pre-defined end of exhibition date (although it will disappear at some point anyway) and is therefore permanent. An advertisement is typically set up for a fixed period of time (for example a month). If this was placed outside the office of the company International Business Products, then it's maybe permanent. If it was placed somewhere else, then it was probably not permanent. Of course, different countries may define "permanent" in different ways, and we don't know how the copyright law of Pakistan defines the term.
 * I'm questioning whether the uploader really is the photographer as claimed. The image has almost no EXIF and is of low-quality web resolution, two common factors for images taken from the Internet. Additionally, the little EXIF which is available contradicts with the clear statements by the uploader. The uploader wrote "Picture taken by Pale blue dot on June 14, 2004" yet the EXIF section tells us that the last modification date was in 1998 which was a lot earlier. 14 June 2004 was also the date when the file was uploaded, so it is unlikely that he would forgot that the photo was not taken on the same day but at least five and a half year earlier. That said, I see that the user has uploaded lots of photos where the EXIF indicates that the photos were taken on the date of upload or on the previous date, which usually indicates that the user's uploads are legitimate. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 19 August 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.