Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 19



File:ZissBenz1911front.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. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:ZissBenz1911front.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * 3D model - see Commons:COM:TOYS  Ron h jones  (Talk) 00:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment it is the reproduction of an original industrial design article released to the public in 1911. So wouldn't the IP ownership attach to the 1911 original article, and not the recent toy? Thus, this would be PD-1923 ; and the original 1911 article would not be protected anyways, being a publicly sold mass produced car. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no copyright for the original car (it's a utilitarian object), only for the model of it. As the model was made in the 1970s, I'm afraid that we may have to treat this as a work from the 1970s. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a reproduction of an original article not under protection, why would a "faithful" reproduction of such be protected? There would be very little originality added. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you make a sculpture of a horse, then you have made a reproduction of an original article not under protection, but the sculpture is nevertheless protected. See also Commons:User:Elcobbola/Models which shows that companies have been able to register several model cars for copyright in the United States. If something isn't copyrightable, then the registration attempt is typically declined. As these weren't declined, this implies that model cars are copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Commons:User:Elcobbola/Models is a fascinating, if frustrating, essay. It's clear that a real car is not eligible for copyright protection. It's clear that if you created a toy car that you imagined yourself (i.e., not a scale model), it would be eligible for copyright protection. It's not clear whether a faithful scale model of a real car would have its copyright status successfully defended in court. On the one hand, the U.S. Copyright Office has listed various scale models in its register. On the other hand, the USCO does not have the final say on the matter; that's up to the courts, and none of the court cases listed at Commons:User:Elcobbola/Models addresses the issue. I would strongly argue that there is no original creative content in a faithful scale model, or at least, none that could be reproduced in a photo of the completed object. In fact, I would be appalled if a court ruled otherwise. But I have been appalled at court rulings on copyright issues in the past, and I can't be 100% sure the court would agree with me. Furthermore, in this particular case, I would argue that the model is not a faithful reproduction. It's not hard to see the difference between a photo of this model and a photo of the car it is based on. There are numerous decisions in how the car is portrayed which could count as "creative", where the model has its own style independent of the real car. We have to assume such creative choices merit copyright protection. – Quadell (talk) 15:40, 25 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.

File:Christine Quinn NYC.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. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Christine Quinn NYC.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * As per http://council.nyc.gov/html/pr/photos.shtml - non-commercial use  Ron h jones  (Talk) 00:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No derivative works either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please understand that official New York City Council photographs does NOT mean official New York City Council portraits. They are two completely different things. In that link that Ronhjones provided, there are no council member portraits, just photographs from various meetings, hearings, events, etc. Do not delete. - DONALDderosa (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Regardless of where it comes from, there is no evidence that New York City has released this to the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 19 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.

File:BorneopythonAugmented.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; reasonable expectation that uploader is rightsholder. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:BorneopythonAugmented.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Missing evidence of permission. Speedy deletion was declined. Kelly  hi! 13:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit summary begins with "Owen Jensen/In the Sun". Doesn't this mean that the uploader tries to claim that "In the Sun" and "Owen Jensen" are the same person? It doesn't seem unreasonable that "In the Sun" and User:Inthesun are the same person as it is just a matter of removing some spaces and changing uppercase to lowercase. No idea if the uploader meant that the image previously was published at the indicated URL or if he just meant that this was his own website. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I declined the no permission tag. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:37, 23 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.

File:Engine.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Two different images in history - yellow engine - Unlikely to be the work of the uploader as it appears to be a standard cat publicity/sales image, original source not found but larger versions can be found like http://r1.cygnuspub.com/files/cygnus/image/OOH/2010/SEP/600x400/c18_a0039_10170828.jpg - the other ship engine clearly looks like it is copied from the web including fancy border. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note the images had just been copied in good faith to commons as File:Merchant Marine Engine by Crusaderpaolo.jpg and File:Non-specific Caterpillar Diesel Engine.jpg, I have nominated them for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, the original version was the "Merchant Marine" engine, and this was an attempt to split the file. But if either one or both are copyvios, I won't challenge the deletions. Incidentally, there's another image named File:Engine.JPG in the commons that should be renamed. -User:DanTD (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The file on Commons doesn't meet any valid renaming criterion as it does show an engine. I believe that both of the files on Wikipedia are copyright violations. See my rationale on Commons. It's a bit messy when two different images have been uploaded under the same file name. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the commons image fit under renaming criterion #4? ---User:DanTD (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. See Commons:Commons talk:File renaming and earlier discussions in the archive. Both Commons:File:Engine.jpg and Commons:File:Engine.JPG show engines of some kind. Also, criterion 4 is only for things related to biology. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * SALT the name and implement a placeholder image, so that no random file from commons will show through on such an extremely generic filename, which would highly likely be overwritten by some other random image (as has happened here) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, it would be impossible to use Commons:File:Engine.jpg on English Wikipedia, since that image doesn't meet any renaming criterion on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Commons does not use WP:NAMINGCRITERIA to name images, so it uses extremely generic filenames to name files. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an article, so WP:NAMINGCRITERIA doesn't apply. It needs to be possible to use this image on Wikipedia, so a placeholder image can't be used. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 24 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.