Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 August 31



File:Paulscheer.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 needs OTRS Shii (tock) 23:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Paulscheer.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * no proof of ownership looks like a screencap Redsky89 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete — Larger versions of this image appear elsewhere (e.g. or ).  The image's description even acknowledges that this particular photo was present elsewhere before being uploaded to WP.  WP policy specifically requires  permission be forwarded to  OTRS if you're going to upload an image you own to WP if it is already present elsewhere on the web.  Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that OTRS was ever contacted regarding this photo.  —RP88 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 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:WE Title page 1927.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 as F5 by AnomieBOT ⚡  20:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * File:WE Title page 1927.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Amount of text and illustration of airplane suggest that this file is not PD-Text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, Crisco, PD-Text states that it is for images that "only contain very simple geometric shapes and text written in very simple typefaces" and that's all this is five year old file is: a one word book title ("WE") followed by 20 words (not even a sentence and with no verb or punctuation) saying the the book is the "flier's own story" of his life, flight to Paris, and aviation and does so in a format that is no more "original" than a shopping list; one very small, simple mostly solid geometric shape of the outline of his well known airplane the shape of which is not copywrightable, and the names of the author (Lindbergh), the writer of the forward (Myron Herrick), and the publisher (G.P. Putnam & Sons), all set in simple black type faces on a solid white background. None of this constitutes sufficient "originality" to reach the threshold of being copyrightable. Sorry, Crisco, but this challenge just seems a bit of a stretch to me. Centpacrr (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Read PD-text again: "typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" (emphasis mine). If I have "Coca-Cola", it's PD-text. If I have "Coca-Cola" as part of a two page essay on the shape of the bottle, it's not, as copyright for text comes in. For the shape, how are you claiming that something like this is PD-simple? There's a propeller, two wings, a tail, etc. I have not seen any examples on Commons of something like this being accepted as PD-simple. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not upload this file to Commons in 2008 nor have I ever moved it there. The file is on en:Wikipedia where PD-text criteria doesn't say "individual words" it says "text". This is not a Commons image issue because that's not where it is, has ever been, nor have I intended it to ever be. Centpacrr (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you reading, exactly? Template:PD-text says individual words. I refer to Commons not because this is where it is hosted, but because they have case studies which serve as a good example. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "PD-text" is defined here as being used "for images that only contain very simple geometric shapes and text written in very simple typefaces." It says nothing about a limitation to "individual words." Centpacrr (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not in line with what's on the template. Considering the template is what's actually on the file page, I should think that the template would be the one to defer to, particularly as the content of text itself can draw copyright. I can't scan a random page from Harry Potter and say "This is PD-Text". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This analogy is really a stretch. A digital scan of a full page of hundreds of words of copyrighted book manuscript "text" bears absolutely no qualitative (or quantitative) relationship whatsoever to the twenty word "blub" found on the "WE" title page that is not even in the form of a sentence, contains no verbs, and has no punctuation. This title page "text" has no more "originality" in form or content than a shopping list as its sole function is to communicate nothing more than the book covers three topics about its author: his "life", his "flight" and his "views on aviation". Indeed the word "text" in the "PD-text" definition (... "text written in very simple typefaces") indicates that is exactly what is contemplated by this Public Domain classification as opposed to limiting it strictly to "individual words". (Otherwise the template would have been called "PD-Individual Words" instead of "PD-text" wouldn't it?) WP policy thus clearly contemplates and accepts that such groups of words or phrases in the form of the twenty words of "text" in the book's title page as not having sufficient originality to be copyrightable and thus would be in the Public Domain. Centpacrr (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not sure whether the words are original enough to be copyrighted, but the image of the aeroplane certainly is. Also, this shows that the copyright was renewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Based on this and this, I would suggest the image is not PD-text and violates copyright... but only by the thinnest of thin margins. Since legal copyright challenges depend on use, having it here probably isn't problematic. However, if someone were to use that sentence in a similar book, it might be an infringement. If our goal is to host totally free material, then this image, which may be problematic in some circumstances, isn't quite totally free. To me however, the bigger issue is that the image was inserted into the article at all. Certainly that's one image that article can survive without. – JBarta (talk) 06:53, 3 September 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:Infinitecoin logotype.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 ⚡  21:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Commons decided to delete this as potentially unfree, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Infinitecoin Logo.png. It would be nice to have this sorted out: some logos for free software are free, and some are unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I originally thought the logo was free and so uploaded it to Commons (indeed the logos for almost all other cryptocurrencies are free), this discussion indicated that the logo is not free (so I modified the Wikipedia file to indicate that it is not free).


 * I can't find any explicit confirmation from the creators of the image that the logo itself is free, so I suppose we have to assume that it isn't. Should this image therefore be deleted? Cliff12345 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The file should not be deleted (as it meets WP:NFCC in the article Infinitecoin), but we should ideally establish whether the logo is free or not. Logos for free software are a bit difficult. The logos are sometimes unfree and sometimes covered by the same licence as the software. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Below TOO? — rybec   04:55, 1 September 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 ⚡ 18:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Just so everyone knows, the Infinitecoin article is currently being considered for deletion, so if this image turns out to be non free, we may have to remove it (if the article is deleted). Cliff12345 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 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:Centpacrr 2012 WC.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: Consensus is to Keep the image. Diannaa (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Centpacrr 2012 WC.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is obviously not own work and there is no evidence of permission. It was originally sourced to Alan Bass and when tagged with {{subst:npd}}, the uploader changed it to claim that the image is from the http://hockeyscoop.net/ website. Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sure this image was discussed before and was deemed to be OK for use on User:Centpacrr user pages, perhaps it was discussed under a slightly different file name. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, here we go again. This image is no different than hundreds (if not thousands) of other similarly produced "self images" that Wikipedia editors have uploaded of themselves for posting on their userpages. This one was created in exactly the same way as File:Centpacrr.jpg, another image of me residing on my userpage that went though this same procedure in 2011, was first improperly deleted as an alleged "copyvio", and after a deletion review was restored with the notation by the closing sysop that "Image restored per overwhelming consensus and pure common sense". (The original deleting and now former admin was also reprimanded when he later admitted that he had deleted the image for personal reasons as opposed to it being an actual copyvio. The former admin has also since closed and deleted his/her account on en:Wikipedia and left the community.)


 * Many hundreds of other examples of similar "self" images copyrighted by the persons they depict that were created in exactly the same way (i.e. taken for them at their direction and request with their own cameras by third parties who then returned the cameras and digital image files to the image subjects) and currently residing on Wikipedia userpages can be found at the Wikipedia Facebook Directory.


 * As both historically and currently practiced on WP, and under WP:COMMON, the long established consensus of the community is that the accepted standard is that the copyright of such "self images" is assumed to have been transferred to and vest in the owner of the camera (who thus has sole permanent custody and control of the image file) unless and until some affirmative evidence to the contrary can be presented. The burden for that is therefore clearly on the challenger of the copyright of the image, not the image's copyright owner/uploader. The application of this accepted common practice within the community must also always be made uniformly and fairly as opposed to selectively and punitively.


 * That being the case, this PUF should be promptly withdrawn by its OP as being without merit because it is clearly contrary to the long and well established community consensus of how the copyright of such WP user "self images" have historically been treated on Wikipedia. Centpacrr (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The case Pushman v. New York Graphic Society only applies to photos taken before 1978, which is obviously not the case here. For photos taken since 1978, permission is needed from the photographer. If you ask a complete stranger to take a photo of you, then there is no way to prove who the photographer is, so there is no way to enforce the copyright. If there is no way for anyone to enforce the copyright, then one could maybe assume that the image implicitly is in the public domain. However, this is obviously not the case here as the name of the photographer is clearly indicated in historic versions of the file information page. There is now a statement that someone who is not the photographer has sent an e-mail to OTRS. A permission e-mail is needed from the photographer, not from you. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect, sir, that just seems to be pure copyright paranoia and is not the way WP operates in practice with non-commercial user page "self" pictures taken gratis of the individual in the picture at his/her request and direction with the subject's camera and image storage medium and upon being taken are both immediately surrendered back to the permanent custody and control of the image subject. It also violates WP:COMMON. If your position is something else then my question to you is why have you not then also challenged the many hundreds of other similar examples of the same type of image files existing on userpages and articles throughout WP that I have pointed out above also hosted in a WP gallery page entitled Wikipedia Facebook Directory? If you believe your espoused "standard" should be applied to my non-commercial userpage self image, then were you not obligated to have already applied it uniformly and fairly (as opposed to selectively and/or punitively) to all these examples I have pointed out to you as well?


 * I know who took the picture for me, and it was always clearly understood between us that he neither made nor had any claim of copyright to the image of me. As the subject of the picture, the one who requested him to take it, the permanent exclusive owner of the camera, original digital file, and the media on which it is stored who has always had exclusive custody and control of both since immediately after the picture was taken, the image and its copyright has always been exclusively mine. As an aside I also took a number of pictures for him on that and other occasions (even using my own camera) the digital files and a waiver of copyright of which I provided to him gratis and in the same way (verbally), and he is freely using some of these images on line now without any restriction.


 * As for claiming that if one doesn't know the identity of the "photographer" who took the picture for him/her the image would be "Public Domain", but if one does know it would become a copyvio for him/her to use it that is both illogical and a straw man and is wrong on both counts. In both cases the copyright would have already irrevocably vested in the person in the photograph who owns the camera and digital file, and it would never become PD unless that copyright holder released it as such.


 * Despite what you say above, the long established consensus and actual demonstrated common sense practice of the community as established both by the precedent in earlier cases (including my own in December, 2011) and actual practice has been that it accepts copyright of such non-commercial userpage "self images" as being assumed to have been transferred to and vest in the subject of the image and owner of the camera.


 * The positive and absolute relinquishment and renunciation of any and all even potential claims of copyright of such an image by the "photographer" is not required to be made in writing as it has already automatically become complete and affirmatively, irrevocably, and legally established by the "photographer's" voluntary act of returning/surrendering the camera and storage media (film or digital) containing the original stored image to the permanent custody and control of their actual owner thus acknowledging the subject/camera owner as both the true interested party and actual legal copyright holder of the photograph/image file.


 * The language specified for use in making notice of permission to ORTS recognizes that the so-called "creator" (the volunteer "photographer") would not be expected to be the copyright holder of such an image file by including the word "or" (i.e. "the creator and/or sole owner") of the copyright in the notice language template to be submitted by the one who grants permission for use on WP thus in this case making me and not the "photographer" the proper party to grant such permission.


 * If you disagree with this then for consistency it is incumbent upon you to immediately open PUF cases on every one of the thousands of other similar images currently in use on WP userpages which you can start doing with the thousands located on the Wikipedia Facebook Directory that I have directed you to. If you fail to do so while still maintaining that I do not own the copyright to my image, however, this will constitute disperate treatment and overt violation of both WP:COMMON and the overarching WP tenant that requires "standards" to be applied to all uniformly and fairly as opposed to selectively and punitively. None of us ever wants to be accused of doing that.


 * As I pointed out above, this has all been hashed out many times before (including specifically in the case of another of my non-commercial userpage self images in December, 2011) with the community consensus always coming down to the common sense conclusion that the copyright of such images belongs properly to the person in the photo who owns the camera and image storage medium, not the one that person had asked to push the button on the user's camera for him or her but never then retained possession of either nor ever claimed copyright to the image. Centpacrr (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the EXIF data, the other photo was taken with a Nikon Coolpix P2 whereas this one was taken with a Nikon D40. — rybec   05:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These two pictures were taken a year-and-a-half apart. The one with the Coolpix P2 camera at the Wells Fargo Center was taken of me prior to Game 6 or the 2010 Stanley Cup finals on June 9, 2010; the other one taken of me at Citizens Bank Park prior to the 2012 NHL Winter Classic game was made on January 2, 2012 with the Nikon D40 which I had acquired in June, 2011 to replace the Coolpix P2. Both cameras belong to me. Centpacrr (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note OTRS has received an email which states that "the creator and/or sole owner" grants permission for the file to be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. . I maybe able to give further (limited) clarification if needed, please ping me on my talk page if needed. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - This should have never been nominated. Stefan2, you have excercised very poor judgement and wasted other editors' time. That alone is easily forgivable. What is less forgivable is that you should know better. – JBarta (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is reasonable to accept the uploader/subject's claim of copyright and subsequent free licence and it is unreasonable to reject these. Thincat (talk) 00:53, 29 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:WexhamNewLogo2.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 ⚡  05:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * File:WexhamNewLogo2.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * School logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I uploaded another copy of this logo as a non-free image and put it into the article. This file can be safely deleted. To the uploader (Haxz.999), in this instance, "editing" the picture and "pixelating it a bit" doesn't magically make you the copyright holder. The image is copyrighted (presumably by the school) and minor fiddling with it doesn't change that. The good news is that (in this case) we can upload it as non-free content and still use it in the artcle. – JBarta (talk) 18:16, 4 September 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.