Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 27



File:Cancara - The Lloyds TSB Black Horse.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 ⚡  03:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Cancara - The Lloyds TSB Black Horse.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Sourced as own work but looks like a screenshot from an advert. Cloudbound (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Uploader's comment is that this is scanned from a promotional brochure. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 13:30, 31 January 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:Interfaith Environmental Forum.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 F8 by AnomieBOT ⚡  19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Interfaith Environmental Forum.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * I suspect this is work for hire and there is no permission from the Interfaith Environmental Forum. LightGreenApple  talk to me  06:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We've received communication via OTRS at 2013012910009143 although it's not usable quite yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:01, 29 January 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:F 23 upgraded with C 802.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 F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  11:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:F 23 upgraded with C 802.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Dispute the PD claim. LightGreenApple  talk to me  06:32, 27 January 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:SSCBS Campus.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 F11 by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Appears at : http://www.indiacollegesearch.com/upload/institute/images/large/shukhdev_col.jpg - with no indication of a 'free' release Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 27 January 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:Wer rettet Dina Foxx.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 ⚡  03:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Wer rettet Dina Foxx.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The background looks way too complex for PD-textlogo. Stefan2 (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment : not sure that the "complex background" referred to in the nom is not in fact an artifact created by the broadcast compression/decompression and screen grab process. LightGreenApple talk to me  21:07, 27 January 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:Corvette 771.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 F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Corvette 771.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image has visibile credit to www.hobbyshangai.net so unlikely to be the work of the uploader, user has a history of copyright violation. MilborneOne (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete pending any ORTS submission. LightGreenApple  talk to me  21:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleted as a good F9 candidate. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 27 January 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:Mmmab.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; it looks like the map came from here, not the CIA website. We would need evidence of permission to host the map here. Dianna (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Mmmab.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Created by a user with no understanding of copyright, refer block history, unlikely to be the work of the uploader MilborneOne (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as F9, taken from here (tagged as such). LightGreenApple  talk to me  21:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC) my bad, as per Nyttend Keep.  LightGreenApple  talk to me  21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, it's not a copyvio of that page; it was uploaded in 2007, and LightGreenApple's link is from 2009.  Moreover, this is clearly a CIA World Factbook image that the uploader has modified; Factbook images are PD-USGov, so there's no problem.  Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It still needs an accurate source and license. Chick Bowen 01:00, 11 February 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:Med BHiA mr-B.pdf

 * 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 ⚡  21:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Med BHiA mr-B.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Invalid licence claim. Even if a country no longer exists, someone is still owns the country's intellectual property. Violates the copyright of the medal. Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 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:Netherlands 2 1-2 cents 1941 obverse.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: convert to fair use. Regardless of Dutch or German occupational copyright law, the engraver Nico de Haas was still alive on 1 January 1996, so these coins are copyrighted even now. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Netherlands 2 1-2 cents 1941 obverse.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Copyvio per Not-PD-US-URAA. Dutch coins have a copyright term of 70 years in the Netherlands, and this coin was not yet 70 years old on the URAA date, so it is protected by copyright for 95 years since publication in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to fair use since obviously no free version can be made, and the coin article would obviously feature the two sides of the coin. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You should note that the original objectors rational for copyvio is blatently wrong. These are not coins issued by the government of the Netherlands, they were issued by Nazi Germany for use in Reichskommissariat Niederlande. The copywright does not apply.XavierGreen (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The engraver who created these did not do so under the purview of dutch law, it was done under the authority of the german military government. As such they were the property of that government. Dutch copywright law is completely irrelevant.XavierGreen (talk) 18:10, 30 January 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:Netherlands 2 1-2 cents 1941 reverse.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: convert to fair use. Regardless of Dutch or German occupational copyright law, the engraver Nico de Haas was still alive on 1 January 1996, so these coins are copyrighted even now. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Netherlands 2 1-2 cents 1941 reverse.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Copyvio per Not-PD-US-URAA. Dutch coins have a copyright term of 70 years in the Netherlands, and this coin was not yet 70 years old on the URAA date, so it is protected by copyright for 95 years since publication in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 27 January 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 ⚡ 22:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to fair use since obviously no free version can be made, and the coin article would obviously feature the two sides of the coin. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are not coins issued by the government of the Netherlands, they were issued by Nazi Germany for use in Reichskommissariat Niederlande. The copywright does not apply.XavierGreen (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so the copyright term in the Netherlands is life of engraver+70 years instead of publication+70 years, then. It is not clear when the engraver died, but assuming that the coins weren't minted posthumously, this doesn't affect the copyright status in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The engraver who created these did not do so under the purview of dutch law, it was done under the authority of the german military government. As such they were the property of that government. Dutch copywright law is completely irrelevant.XavierGreen (talk) 18:09, 30 January 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:Zinc coins Netherlands 1940s World War II obverse.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: convert to fair use. Regardless of Dutch or German occupational copyright law, the engraver Nico de Haas was still alive on 1 January 1996, so these coins are copyrighted even now. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Zinc coins Netherlands 1940s World War II obverse.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Copyvio per Not-PD-US-URAA. Dutch coins have a copyright term of 70 years in the Netherlands, and these coins were not yet 70 years old on the URAA date, so they are protected by copyright for 95 years since publication in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are not coins issued by the government of the Netherlands, they were issued by Nazi Germany for use in Reichskommissariat Niederlande. The copywright does not apply.XavierGreen (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so the copyright term in the Netherlands is life of engraver+70 years instead of publication+70 years, then. It is not clear when the engraver died, but assuming that the coins weren't minted posthumously, this doesn't affect the copyright status in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The engraver who created these did not do so under the purview of dutch law, it was done under the authority of the german military government. As such they were the property of that government. Dutch copywright law is completely irrelevant.XavierGreen (talk) 18:09, 30 January 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:Zinc coins Netherlands 1940s World War II reverse.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: convert to fair use. Regardless of Dutch or German occupational copyright law, the engraver Nico de Haas was still alive on 1 January 1996, so these coins are copyrighted even now. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Zinc coins Netherlands 1940s World War II reverse.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Copyvio per Not-PD-US-URAA. Dutch coins have a copyright term of 70 years in the Netherlands, and these coins were not yet 70 years old on the URAA date, so they are protected by copyright for 95 years since publication in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are not coins issued by the government of the Netherlands, they were issued by Nazi Germany for use in Reichskommissariat Niederlande. The copywright does not apply.XavierGreen (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so the copyright term in the Netherlands is life of engraver+70 years instead of publication+70 years, then. It is not clear when the engraver died, but assuming that the coins weren't minted posthumously, this doesn't affect the copyright status in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The engraver who created these did not do so under the purview of dutch law, it was done under the authority of the german military government. As such they were the property of that government. Dutch copywright law is completely irrelevant.XavierGreen (talk) 18:09, 30 January 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:Perry Haydn Taylor.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 the addition of the OTRS ticket. Dianna (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Perry Haydn Taylor.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * EXIF data includes "Copyright holder	Perry Haydn Taylor" and there is no evidence of permission. Eeekster (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The name in the EXIF isn't too different to the user name of the uploader, so the copyright holder in the EXIF is presumably the uploader. However, https://secure.flickr.com/photos/cornishware/3637672593/ is more troubling. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment given the uploaders username is Perryht it is reasonable to assume that they could be the owner of the copyright. Ask the nominator to consider withdrawing this and asking for ORTS verification of the copyright status.  LightGreenApple  talk to me  22:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize he could be the owner of the copyright. But if so, he needs to go through the OTRS procedure to provide some evidence of his ownership. Eeekster (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OTRS received and processed.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:08, 31 January 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:Former USMC Basic Badge.png
<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 the drawings, Delete the photos. Dianna (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Former USMC Basic Badge.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence of permission from the photographer. The licence only applies to the badge itself. Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Does a photograph of a clearly PD badge reach the Threshold of originality to be protected anyway ? LightGreenApple  talk to me  23:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. See Commons:COM:ART. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Justification: A graphic representation of an award or decoration of an agency of the federal government of the United States constitute a work of the U.S. Federal Government and as such, the image is in the public domain. Under American copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright work may not be protected under American copyright law. If this were a coin, then it would be different, but it's not; it's an image of U.S. Government badge designed by the U.S. Marine Corps. --McChizzle (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A mere photograph of an out-of-copyright 2D work may not be protected by copyright in the United States. However, the link I added above tells that a coin is a 3D work and that you need permission from the photographer for photos of coins for this reason. This work is just as 3D as a coin. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Under that logic, a drawing of a military badge would be okay, correct? --McChizzle (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if the drawing was made by the US government. A photo of a drawing is OK if the drawing itself is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found an image that meets my article's needs that was taken and posted by a blogger for public consumption. These "blogged" images have been acceptable to Wikipedia Administrators in the past, so I hope it passes your test.  It can be found on the page in question. --McChizzle (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Photos from blogs still need permission from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I took the time to create a sketch of the badge and uploaded it to the page in question. This should address your concerns. --McChizzle (talk) 22:56, 30 January 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:TarynFecesHendrix.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 ⚡  03:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Flickrwashing. Uploaded to https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/8865510fd3596f7dbfb4d7d546c5ac83/tumblr_mfn71uZO8z1rj20uro1_500.jpg in December but not uploaded to Flickr until a month later. Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as F9. LightGreenApple  talk to me  23:48, 27 January 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.