Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 17



File:ATTAPADYHOUSE.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:ATTAPADYHOUSE.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * tagged this file with copyrighted. I don't know whether the user thinks that the file is unfree for some reason, or if so why. No earlier hits on Google and it was uploaded here 9 days after it was taken, but the uploader mentioned a URL on the file information page when uploading it. Taking to PUF for an opinion. Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 17 February 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Pic-038.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 -- TLSuda  (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Pic-038.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * tagged this file with copyright. I don't know whether the user thinks that the file is unfree for some reason, or if so why. No earlier hits on Google. Watermarked with a URL. The uploader's user name includes the name "Allan" and the URL also contains that name. Taking to PUF for an opinion. Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My name is Allan VanderSpek. I used to have visitallan.biz as my URL, but changed it to www.iamallan.com.  I had intended to use the photo on my website, before I changed my mind.  The work is 100% mine, was taken with my old Palm Treo 700wx.  You're welcome to do with it as you wish, as I can't find the original anymore. Regards, AllanVS talk contribs 05:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, uploader's explanation is satisfactory. Versions of visitallan.biz in archive.org confirms this website belonged to Allan VanderSpek. (Since this image wasn't previously published I don't think this need to go through OTRS.) January  ( talk ) 09:43, 28 February 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Tech Details.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 as F11 by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Tech Details.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Invalid PD reason. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Dancing in the dark, from bandwagon.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  03:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Dancing in the dark, from bandwagon.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Wrong rights template: the copyright of this film most definitely was renewed. "No notice" would've been the correct template if there was no copyright notice on the trailer, but in fact there was. No link is given but I assume this is a screenshot from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQxXUmB7AEI and a copyright notice is ten seconds in. I'll happily withdraw this XFD if another trailer exists without a copyright notice. Note that there are two images from this trailer, each with the same COPYVIO issue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you check for a renewal for the trailer or only for a renewal for the full film? If the trailer wasn't separately renewed, but published before the film, then the trailer is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Shine on Your Shoes from The Band Wagon.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  03:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Shine on Your Shoes from The Band Wagon.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Wrong rights template: the copyright of this film most definitely was renewed. "No notice" would've been the correct template if there was no copyright notice on the trailer, but in fact there was. No link is given but I assume this is a screenshot from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQxXUmB7AEI and a copyright notice is ten seconds in. I'll happily withdraw this XFD if another trailer exists without a copyright notice. Note that there are two images from this trailer, each with the same COPYVIO issue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you check for a renewal for the trailer or only for a renewal for the full film? If the trailer wasn't separately renewed, but published before the film, then the trailer is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Responding here re both photos. That's an excellent question. However, the subject came up in Commons when I posted a trailer shot from another movie and it was tagged for deletion. After an extensive discussion there and on Wikipedia with the editor who tagged it and Wikiproject Film, it was shown at some length that the appropriate notice for a vintage trailer is a "no notice" tag, and that is only applicable if there is no notice whatever on the trailer. You raise an interesting point so I will re-raise the question in both venues. Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Another question, related to the above: isn't it the uploader's responsibility to prove nonrenewal, and not just assert it? Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is usually not possible to prove that something wasn't renewed, only that it was renewed. However, it is usually a good idea to explain what searches you have performed to establish whether the image was renewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This film is from 1953, though I'm not clear as to whether the renewals are available and, if so, where they are. I ran a search at the Copyright Office and the results were ambiguous, voluminous and hard to interpret. Besides, isn't this really the responsibility of the uploader? The uploader makes no claim for either image that he made any effort to determine if the copyright expired and was not renewed. The uploader definitely has such an obligation on Commons and I presume the same norm applies here. Don't get me wrong: I'd be very happy if this "exemption" applies as it would not only salvage these two very good photos but many others as well, including one of mine that was just deleted on Commons. It would end the presumption that a copyright tag on a trailer means that it is not PD. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing the issue in Commons here. You might want to drop by and participate. Coretheapple (talk) 20:56, 17 February 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Saladin in War.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Saladin in War.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Sourced to ur:ملف:Saladin in War.jpeg where there is neither a source nor a licence. Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:SCHURTER Headquarters in Lucerne.tiff

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:SCHURTER Headquarters in Lucerne.tiff ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Possibly cropped from the image here. Note that the same car is seen on both pictures. Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:SCHURTER Circuit Protection.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:SCHURTER Circuit Protection.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Seems to be from here, but that copy has lower resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Regals SCA.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  03:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Regals SCA.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

OTRS pending — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipknife (talk • contribs) 2014-02-21T01:57:52‎
 * "Part of a soccer league" does nothing to actually explain why the image is PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:07, 17 February 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Horatio Myer.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  03:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Horatio Myer.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * We are missing publication information for this photograph. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Publication information is not missing for this photograph, rather it is not specific. We know the subject died in 1916 so the original publication will have taken place between 1906 and 1916 making it PD-UK. Graemp (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence that the photograph was published between 1906 and 1916. Also, please provide evidence that publication between those years automatically means that the photograph is in the public domain in the United Kingdom. All we currently have is a year of creation and an Internet publication, but there is no evidence that the photograph was published before the Internet was invented. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is as yet no exact on-line evidence of publication date. Had there been, I'm sure it would have been provided. In its absence, we therefore have to rely upon other evidence. The individual in question was a public figure who stood for public office in 1906 and 1910 and was a public representative between these two dates. The image was clearly published as a postcard; The dimensions of the image are identical to the standard dimensions of a UK postcard for this period. The image also reveals signs of wear and corner buffing that are associated with used postcards. It is therefore highly likely that this 1906 image would have been published between these dates and highly unlikely that it would have been published after 1916, the year of his death. Graemp (talk) 17:37, 27 February 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.