Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 25



File:Armanswaroop.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  INeverCry   17:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Armanswaroop.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence that this is a US government work. Stefan2 (talk) 09:51, 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:Dayana2.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  INeverCry   17:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Dayana2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * stopped editing in 2008. Her talk page is a huge list of "fair-use" images of models that were deleted as replaceable. This is the only upload that she claimed "I created this image entirely by myself", and she only did so after her other model images were deleted. Google Image Search shows this image as being all over Facebook, MySpace, etc., though I can't confirm the origin. Lidieth did not elaborate on how or where she created this photo, and I'm frankly dubious. (Note that the image has been copied to Commons; if it's deleted here, it should be deleted there as well.) – Quadell (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for deletion on Commons, citing a blog post where it was used one day before it was uploaded to Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: it was deleted on Commons as a copyvio. – Quadell (talk) 21:30, 28 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:BSVRR EMD FP9.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: Withdrawn; copyright status established. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:BSVRR EMD FP9.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * originally uploaded this as CC-by-SA-3.0, but later returned to re-affirm that it was CC-by-SA-3.0, but "not for commercial use." You can't have it both ways. My sense is that we can ignore the later statement since the image as uploaded in 2009 was properly licensed, but I'm uncertain of this and the image is replaceable. Note that he later said on his talk page that "it can't be used commercially." Mackensen (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, the licence can't be withdrawn. However, particularly since the image is not in use and we have another image of this type of locomotive (File:FP9Au RLGN 1400.jpg), it would be reasonable to offer the uploader file deletion rather than to over-ride their licensing wishes. If the uploader wanted it, would this qualify as WP:CSD? The only other contributions are by Fbot to the image description.Thincat (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I think deletion is the inevitable outcome of the uploader's actions, but he didn't realize that and unfortunately no one ever explained it to him. If he were told it was allow non-commercial or it's deleted, maybe he would have relaxed his stance. Mackensen (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There should be a way we can fix this. Actually, the image was more than likely for the Boone and Scenic Valley Railroad article, and they have another image of the same locomotive (File:BSVY 6540.JPG). The thing is, the article describes it as an ex-CN locomotive, and the one tagged for deletion, has clear C&NW tags. Regardless, losing this would be disappointing. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I can explain that. I removed the image from the article yesterday (image overuse), but the image at top is the same locomotive. BSVRR applied CNW paint but it's ex-CN which later did service with VIA. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, so without the licensing issues, this would be just an orphan. So again, how can we fix this without deleting it? -User:DanTD (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Unclear, because the user's actual intentions are unknown. I think the initial grant of CC-by-SA-3.0 was in error, since the user seemed quite adamant later that it was non-commercial. He probably should have licensed it CC-by-nc-SA-3.0 instead, since that reflects his intentions. That's unfree since WP content has to be commercially usable. We could try contacting the user (who is long gone) and asking him to change his mind. He was contacted once on his talk page and didn't want to allow commercial use, although that matter wasn't specifically raised. Failing that, all that would be left is a claim of fair use, which obviously fails since there's a free replacement in use. An alternative to the above is that we state, error or no, the original license grant is active. I'd prefer not to, especially when we truly do not need the image. Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't understand the licensing, and didn't really want anyone to make a profit from it but beyond that didn't care. If I unintentionally licensed it for people to profit from and not pass any of that back, then that's the bargain I made. Use it as you wish. btrotter (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. I took it while visiting with my grandma- it was not for print.


 * It is nice to hear from you. There have been occasions when photos here have been used commercially without payment (tourist brochures and web sites come to mind), which they are allowed to do, but in practice they don't acknowledge the photographer in any way and that is absolutely against the licence. Whenever I have seen, the photographer has done nothing about it except possibly get some pleasure that their photo was thought so good. Sometimes firms do actually ask for permission to use a photo and that is gratifying. Thincat (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Per I think this can be withdrawn and I appreciate Btrotter coming here to clarify the situation. It really is a great shot of the FP9. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good to know. Would you mind if I removed the tag? -User:DanTD (talk)  23:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, are we deciding to keep this or not? -User:DanTD (talk) 01:52, 5 June 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.

All files from paksoldiers.com

 * 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. I'm inclined to agree that paksoldiers.com is indeed license-laundering.  Mini  apolis  18:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Al-Khalid MBT.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Hatf IX (Nasr) Missile.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Gayari Rescue Operation.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Inter-Services Intelligence Logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Inter-Services Public Relations Logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Tahir Rafique Butt & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Hatf IV Shaheen-1 Missile (Pakistan).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Major General Athar Abbas ISPR.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Tahir Rafique Butt.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Burraq Armed UAV (Pakistan).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

Files have been uploaded from paksoldiers.com in good faith based on this statement releasing their content under CC-BY-3.0. Unfortunately, much of the content of their site is unambiguously not their own. I found File:Gayari Rescue Operation.jpg at. Two of the files are logos that wouldn't be owned by this website anyway. File:Nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan.jpg also comes from The Nation. File:Tahir Rafique Butt & Viktor Nikolayevich Bondarev.jpg comes from. File:Hatf IV Shaheen-1 Missile (Pakistan).jpg clearly says it's a press release. I have no idea what the original source for File:Major General Athar Abbas ISPR.jpg is, but has it in a 2011 article. It's obvious that their images are all coming from somewhere else - we can't accept this license. --B (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The website says all content is owned by it under cc-by-3.0 license .... It has its own sources and is one of the best websites which won the “Best Sector Coverage” award at Pakistan Blog Awards 2011, held in partnership with Google. It has press releases by ISPR (info released for public use) and some other content present also in other websites ... I will contact the editor of the website for any justification .... --Maxx786 (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Interesting. Paksoldiers.com do not seem to necessarily "own" all this content but they might possibly have obtained CC licencing on all these images. And if they have made a small number of mistakes then that doesn't invalidate the licensing status as a whole. I see a possible analogy with Commons. So, unless there is evidence that any particular image does not have a free licence, it depends on the practices and reputation of the site. On the last point, I have no knowledge or opinion. Thincat (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think the odds are they obtained CC licensing for news media photos? It's nothing but license laundering. --B (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with your views, paksoldiers.com is an organisation with a good reputation and an award winning blog.. So, its use of content belonging to other websites without permission seems strange.. Doesn't it?

For AQ Khan photo on The Nation, its also present [here]on The News International.

Similarly, the Tahir Rafique Butt photo is also present on Business Recorder [here (1)] and on News 24 (India) [here (2)].

Many other news photos also present on many other reliable sources .. So, can we conclude its license laundering done by the above website?? --Maxx786 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Many of the images can be found elsewhere, sometimes bigger, sometimes with an earlier "Page Info" date. I think this comes into the same category as Flickrwashing. I did a search on commons (they are always more speedy with copyright issues!) for "Paksoldiers.com" and found no hits - if this was a viable source of images, I think commons would have hosted some. It's also disturbing that although there is that statement at http://paksoldiers.com/copyrights/ - the bottom of every page says quite clearly "Copyright © 2013 All Rights Reserved."  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:32, 30 July 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.