Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 21



File:LVEM5.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 ⚡  19:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * File:LVEM5.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Unclear source. Sourced to Delong America, but it also says that the uploader is the copyright holder. Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 21 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:Nikolay Timofeyevich Gres.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 author identified. Nthep (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Nikolay Timofeyevich Gres.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There is no evidence that any of the copyrigth tags applies here. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Yes there is evidence written on the filepage as follows: "The Russian licence is placed here on the understanding that the military is a state government agency and that its promotional photograph of one of its WW2 army entertainment corps (i.e. this image) is a state agency document."
 * Are you saying that (1) the Soviet military was not a state government agency OR that (2) Nic Gres (guy in the photo) is not wearing Soviet military uniform, OR that (3) this photo which was produced and promoted by the Soviet army is not therefore a state agency document? --Storye book (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PD-RU-exempt requires that the image was used in certain kinds of official documents. There is no evidence that this is the case. There is also no source. The link in the CopyrightedFreeUse-Link template links to a page which shows a completely different photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The image itself is an official document, since it is by the Soviet army and of the Soviet army and printed. That is your evidence.  I have clarified the source on the image page to say that it is a scan of a vintage image which I possessed at the time of upload.  However you are correct that the link in the tl|CopyrightedFreeUse-Link template is wrong (my mistake), and I have deleted that template. Thank you for drawing my attention to it --Storye book (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, a photo is never in itself a law, judicial decision or any of the other kinds of works listed in the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is your evidence that a photograph is not a document or that a photograph cannot be used in evidence? Here, for example, is a page on the website of the Hague Academy of International Law, in which a photograph is treated as part of a group of documents, and is being used as evidence (of identity in that case). And no-one is questioning whether a photograph can be a law or a judicial decision - that wouldn't make sense. --Storye book (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you google for a definition of "document" you get this. "noun ˈdɒkjʊm(ə)nt/ 1. a piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides information or evidence or that serves as an official record. synonyms:	official paper, legal paper, paper, form, certificate, deed, charter, contract, legal agreement; record, report; instrument, indenture, acquittance; paperwork, documentation; informal treeware 'their solicitor drew up a document' verb verb: document; 3rd person present: documents; past tense: documented; past participle: documented; gerund or present participle: documenting ˈdɒkjʊmɛnt/ 1. record (something) in written, photographic, or other form. 'the photographer spent years documenting the lives of miners' synonyms:	record, register, report, log, chronicle, file, archive, catalogue, put on record, commit to paper, set down, take down, write down, set down in writing, set down in black and white, write about; More"

--Storye book (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The template PD-RU-exempt doesn't apply to all documents but only to those kinds of documents which are listed in the template. All of the examples in point 1 (which is the only point which mentions documents) are textual documents, so it would seem that only textual documents (and only certain textual documents) satisfy point 1 of PD-RU-exempt. This photo is not a textual document. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, I dispute your point that all examples in point 1 are textual items. Materials of administrative character can be photographs. The list that you mention is merely included in the category "official documents of state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations" and is not therefore the only type of document existing in that category.  The licence is for the whole category. --Storye book (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that the photo is "state administration" or that it was taken by the government at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have said, it was taken by the Soviet army, which was a government agency. It is clearly an official publicity photograph of Nic Gres as an official soloist of the Alexandrov Ensemble, the forces entertainment arm of the Soviet army and symbol of national pride. That is a form of state administration since it was intended to document for the world what they wanted to be seen to be doing, and to represent the state's national cultural pride. One of Gres' friends and fellow soloists of the Ensemble is still alive: Leonid Mikhailovich Kharitonov.  He has a good memory and will almost certainly remember these photographs being taken by the army. During the Soviet era and until well after 1989 there was no private business ownership so no private copyright anyway; all photographs in this situation would be done under the auspices of the State. If it would help, I could ask his son to obtain a witness statement from his father.  However this would take some time and may not fit into the time frame of speedy deletions. --Storye book (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are claiming that this is a news photo? According to Commons:Template talk:PD-RU-exempt, the template doesn't apply to news photos. Looking at Commons:Category:PD-RU-exempt, I do not see any photos (at least not at the beginning of the category), so it would appear that the template doesn't cover photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No I'm not claiming that it's a news photo; it's an identity document for identifying the soloists, and an official publicity photo which publicly documents the activity of the forces entertainment arm of the Soviet army. By the way, your links don't work. --Storye book (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I have made further enquiries and received new information about the date of this image. I have therefore corrected the licence.  Thank you for triggering this enquiry. --Storye book (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now it says that the photo was taken in 1940 by a photographer who died before 1913. This is impossible. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that tag didn't make sense to me either. I've had a gap of 18 months since last working regularly on WP, and it seems that copyright markup and tags have changed considerably.  Using this page, I chose PD-old-70 which I think fits my intention.  But I can't find a licence for a Soviet Russian photo which was published in 1940 and the individual who clicked the camera is unknown, because the Wikipedia rules only seem to discuss photos where the death date of the individual author is known. Is this the right licence for an unknown author? --Storye book (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PD-old-70 tells that the photographer died before 1943, of which we have no evidence. There is also no evidence that the photographer is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How can there ever be evidence that something is unknown? Is there still a tag for "photographer unknown"?--Storye book (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the photo was published with a photo credit somewhere within 50 years after creation of the photo, or if the identity of the photographer was identified in certain other contexts, then you have to show that the photographer died before 1946. There is no proper source and no information about the initial publications of the photo (which are the most likely to contain a photo credit), so it isn't possible to assume that the photographer is anonymous. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the matter is resolved now (see filepage). Thank you for your kind help in this matter. --Storye book (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did you find the death year of the photographer? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Information from one of my friends in Moscow who knew the photographer's family. --Storye book (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that you first had no idea who the photographer was and that you suddenly found out that you knew a friend of the photographer's family? This doesn't seem to make sense. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He did further research on my behalf and then realised that he had known of the family. Sorry I was writing briefly (above) so that it looked as if he knew them personally - I had no idea that you wanted that sort of research detail.  I think this is getting silly.  I have worked very hard (and so has my researcher) to sort this matter out, and I have been very cooperative.  I have a long and good track record on Wikipedia.  It is beginning to look either as if you just want to delete the photograph no matter what, or as if you want to continue this argument because you just like winning. I'm not going to discuss this with you any more, because I feel that you are now wasting my time. I work very hard for Wikipedia (see my contributions list) and I'm currently doing quite a lot of research on various articles. I feel as if I am being intimidated in this conversation, no matter how hard I try to get it right.  This is not a place for adversarial-law games, and trying to make your witness look a fool is adversarial style. --Storye book (talk) 10:18, 3 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:Shree Airlines Logo.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: Kept as fair use for one article. Diannaa (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Shree Airlines Logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader may have created this specific file, but if it's a logo of an organization it's a derivative work of their work. No evidence they have licensed it. Possibly could be PD-textlogo though. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Logo belongs to Shree Airlines. I am authorized to upload the file. If you need to verify it, you may go to their web site and fill the contact form. You will get a reply confirming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.42.216 (talk) 17:56, 21 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.