Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 August 6



File:Dr Shri Ram Nene with Madhuri Dixit.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, deleted by. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Dr Shri Ram Nene with Madhuri Dixit.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader has not mentioned it as his own image and frankly viewing the images metadata, it is clear that it is a non-free copyright violating image. A google search of the image found numerous fansites from where it is available — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 06:10, 6 August 2014 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:CalCas DBeau Brown.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, deleted by. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * File:CalCas DBeau Brown.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * http://www.calcas.com/web/ccmc/executives has the image now, website is copyrighted. Unlikely this is self made. Deadstar (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also File:Calcas Home Office San Mateo.jpg, and File:CalCasCSCsm.jpg - selfmade claim, but both are web-sized, and likely taken from company website. Deadstar (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2014 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:CalcasPathfinder.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, deleted by. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * File:CalcasPathfinder.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image likely taken from Calcas website (see above) as well as it is an image of a modern, 3D piece of art. Deadstar (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2014 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Tom Carstairs In Concert.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, deleted by. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Tom Carstairs In Concert.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The image uploader claims, in a post to deleted page Talk:Tom Carstairs to be the subject, but claims in the copyright details for this image to be a photographer, referring to the subject in the third person, and providing no evidence the image is a self portrait. There is no EXIF data to indicate a timer was set. The likelihood is the image was taken by a third party (persons unknown) and given to the subject to upload, alternatively the uploader may be the photographer and was lying when they claimed to be the subject.

Please note: If it is determined the copyright release is unsatisfactory, do not delete the image, as it is likely the image can be used under a claim of fair use. Nick (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As the image is now unused, the image cannot be retained as a fair use image. Nick (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and it appears discussion on the article talk page is against restoring the image, so much for the fair use rationale. Monty  845  16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't follow this logic at all. While it was uploaded by Carstairs1 who then wrote "I took this photo when Tom was in concert, it is not copyrighted." it could have been uploaded by some other person named "Carstair", e.g. a brother, his mother, or other relative. Or it could have been uploaded by Tom C. based on a photo for hire, or just with permission. In any case a release to the public domain can not be undone, not on a "I changed my mind" basis, not even on a "I was confused" basis. But none of that has even been claimed; its just Nick saying "I don't know what's happening". In either of Nick's 2 cases, I don't see a claim of copyright infringement.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow, the image was uploaded by who claimed authorship on the image and provided the public domain release, on the basis of being the author of the image. That same account then claimed, at Talk:Tom Carstairs to be the subject of the image. The same account (so in our view, the same person) claimed initially to be the person who photographed Tom Carstairs then claimed to be Tom Carstairs. We would need at the very minimum, some clarification about who created the photograph and most likely, permission to OTRS confirming a suitable release from the photographer, if it's not Tom Carstairs. I'm not at all sure where you reached the conclusion that "I don't know what's happening". Nick (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it said "Theis page deserves to be kept because i am just a starting musician that is in the process of recording songs. This page needs to be kept for all of my fans at my school.  Thank you."  The use of the pronoun "I" indicates that the user of the account "Carstairs1" was Tom Carstairs. However, the user of the account also claimed "I took this photo when Tom was in concert". These two statements cannot both be true, barring the use of a timer -- but as stated earlier, there is no EXIF data to indicate that a timer was used. Your comments about "uploaded by Tom C. based on a photo for hire, or just with permission" are, no offense intended, grasping at straws. A release to the public domain cannot be undone, but it can be shown to have been invalid in the first place. I would also point out that every day, dozens of images uploaded to Wikipedia are deleted despite being in the public domain, simply because there is no reason for them to be on Wikipedia. If this file had been deleted for being an orphaned image with no further potential use in the brief interval between the request being filed and the request being made public, would we then feel compelled to restore the image just to illustrate our article on the RTBF? DS (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Its hard to say, but probably not. But then again, a little difference in timing can often drastically impact the outcome of something. As to the primary policy question here, is there any precedent for a situation where a statement elsewhere conflicts with the claim of licensing, and neither seems more compelling?  Monty  845  23:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know the answer to that, but I think we have, in the past, deleted images taking into account that people uploaded them as minors and later would have preferred that they hadn't. That seems like this case, except there's been no direct contact from the subject.
 * The fact that the image appears to be a scan from a photocopy or low-quality print also makes it less likely that the uploader had access to the original (i.e. more likely that he was not the copyright holder). Formerip (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as unnecessary and unclear copyright others have pointed out. The subject has not had an article on Wikipedia, except for one day in 2006 when it was created and the image uploaded, by whom we do not know and very likely can never verify.  Forcing this image into Right to be forgotten is a WP:BLP violation. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Photo claimed to have been taken by a user whose sole non-deleted contribution was this upload. The grain in the photo suggest this is a scan (or rather digital photo taken with a modern camera based on the EXIF info) from a print newspaper or magazine or even from a photocopy thereof. I think the precautionary principle applies to the copyright on this image, even if it's not technically stored on Commons (yet). Looking at his talk page, he uploaded another photo that was also deleted for copyright concerns. And I agree with John Vandenberg that [ab]using this image now is basically proving the EU regulators were right, as well as violating Wikipedia's own policies. JMP EAX (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, the copyright release is dubious enough, as pointed out by the nom, that it probably can't be accepted without further clarifying information. I don't agree that we should (or can) retain the image as fair use either, given that it's not used in any article and unlikely to be used in the foreseeable future.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete, we have a questionable copyright release and no encyclopedic value. It seems very likely that the image would have been deleted without a second thought had anyone noticed it before the RTBF ruling and the request to Google.  Morally, we should treat this as a complaint about our content that Google passed along to us to deal with.  There will be more notices from Google and some of them will be worth fighting.  This is not one.  This is just a pointless image.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2014 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Leeds University logo part.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 discussion was: delete, deleted by. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Leeds University logo part.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There is also File:UniversityOfLeedsSquare.svg which is listed as unfree, so maybe this one also is unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2014 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.