Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 July 7



File:Charles Boney.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 ⚡  20:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Charles Boney.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * I can't see anything that confirms that Indiana government records are public domain. I've found that some agencies in indiana that have clear (c) statements. Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was Floyd county if that helps. Bali88 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Works by the Indiana state government and/or individual counties are generally subject to copyright and are not in the public domain unless they're specifically marked as such. While certain US states do exempt governmental works from copyright, Indiana is not among them. See Commons:Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal). Also the source page did not identify this image as PD. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 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:Prof David Lichtstein.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 F9 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Prof David Lichtstein.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * image appears on other websites, in higher resolution, and on page 5 of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin from september 29 2008 (see [www.ottawajewishbulletin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Ottawa-Jewish-Bulletin-2008-09-29inaccessible1.pdf here]), far pre-dating the 2012 date claimed in the upload Peripitus (Talk) 11:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio, for which the uploader seems to have a past record. There's also this copy. On that note, the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin seems to have gotten the name wrong, writing "Lichstein" throughout the article. De728631 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 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:Manipulating Rabia sign.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: Deleted. Unfree images collated from internet into one image. The uploader has poor understanding of copyright, it would be good if they would ask more experienced users for advice before uploading images they have created or gathered from the internet, I have had to delete two other Rabia signs for being copyright violations taken from the internet. Nick (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Manipulating Rabia sign.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * I'd tagged this with a wrong license as it's claimed as own work but it's compilation of web images. Bringing to PUF for second opinon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true that it is a compilation of web images but, these images bear no copyright status because they are anonymously created. I have no clue what license should anonymously created images be given, and whether the source should be "Own work" or "Anonymous". Lastly a question: if I re-created these images by myself, would that be a better way to go? Thanks. Omar Othman 95 (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even anonymous works are copyrighted for a certain period after their first publication in most jurisdictions. E.g. in the European Union the copyright term for anonymous works is 70 years. These are recent images some of which apparently come from Arabic-speaking parts of the World. So if you compare the templates in Commons:Category:Arab license tags, there is nothing that automatically puts anonymous works into the public domain. In case of Egypt in particular, "other works that are either anonymous or pseudonymous" would have to be published before 1964. De728631 (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By "anonymous" I mean it is not important who created it. These images are satiric manipulations of a popular sign whom creators are unknown and should really not, esp. because of the predominance of such images (and equally their creators) on social media. In other words, the images were not published as artworks under any jurisdictional licenses/laws. It seems I'll have to recreate them myself and republish as own work but I thought they were trivial enough to really care about their copyright, if there was any. —Omar Othman 95 (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For legal reasons it is always important who created an artwork. If the creator is unknown but copyright terms still apply, we cannot host such files. Also, these files are not trivial because you can always select different styles of hands and shadings etc. to be applied. The artists chose to make their signs the way they are, and that is what makes them copyrighted. I would also refrain from redrawing them because that would constitute copyright infringement as well.
 * You might, however, use one of these signs with a fair use rationale provided that it is properly discussed in the article. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, delete the file. I will find a replacement. Thanks for your help. —Omar Othman 95 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 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:Sedam airport.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  20:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Sedam airport.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).



I found some aerial photos which are against copyright. How do I fix them? Shabratha (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is too hard to answer without more detail. Please tells us which photos you've found, on which Wikipedia articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on your editing history all I can see is that you have not uploaded any images here, so, exactly which images are you talking about and what is their problem. Please link to the page they are found on and not just to the image itself. Fixing, if they do need fixing, will depend on their copyright status and may not even be possible unless you get the copyright holder to release their images freely. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * These pictures are screenshots from software, they are not selfpublished. This is against copyright. Maybe they should be deleted. What is the process. File:Sedam_airport.png, File:Hubli_airport.png, File:Bangalore_international_airport.png, File:Bellary_old_airport.png, File:Koppal_airport.png, File:Harihar_airport.png, File:Sulekere002.png and File:Sulekere001.png Shabratha (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how you know these are software screenshots and not the authors own images? What are the giveaway signs? Is there any other reason to not WP:AGF? They are indeed all from the same uploader but I see he has had some image copyright issues previously. If they are copyright they should indeed be deleted unless they could be claimed as fair use, but I doubt that. You can always put them up for deletion yourself by clicking on the "Nominate for deletion" button on the left side of the screen and filling in the reasons. ww2censor (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the shadowing and the other artefacts, those images are what you get if you take a 2d satellite image, enhance contrast, stretch it over a terrain model which has lower resolution/lower accuracy, then rotate it to get framing like a real photo taken from a plane. Look at the bushes and the fence in the foreground of File:Sedam_airport.png, they have been flattened, and surface features are blurred because the satellite image is not as hires as a real photo would be. The town in File:Hubli_airport.png has the same problem. Look at how the runway and apron are crumpled in File:Bangalore_international_airport.png, a real photo would show the apron completely flat. Look at the kink in the road on the right of File:Sulekere001.png, it is vertical exaggeration. The bottom right of File:Sulekere002.png looks strange because elevation is distorted until we see resolution problems at top of a small hill, and the viaduct looks zigzag. Google Earth exaggerates vertical, to make pseudo-3d terrain look more dramatic, but that only works where elevation differences are big enough appear in the terrain model which is not so accurate, if you recreate a view like this in software like google earth, most hills become big but some small ones disappear, flat landscape features become crumpled, but buildings and trees become flat, small objects are blurry, and there are contrast-enhancement artefacts. I am not 100% sure it is from Google Earth, we would have similar artefacts with any other software which tries to make 2d satellite images into 3d landscapes, like maybe some flightsims. These are not real photos. Shabratha (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see Media copyright questions for the rest of the discussion which is merely related to finding the proper deletion process. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 16:21, 7 July 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:Jcg 7.25.13 Headshot.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 F1 by AnomieBOT ⚡  10:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Jcg 7.25.13 Headshot.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * EXIF: "Copyright holder www.cityheadshots.com (from $149)" Eeekster (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that it is not licenced at all, this would need an OTRS ticket to provide evidence that is the photographer Martin Bentsen credited in the EXIF. De728631 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 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:Ashokgayathrifilm.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 ⚡  05:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Ashokgayathrifilm.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Found a copy at http://www.metromatinee.com/Gallery/Ashok%20Gayathri-1973-Actor-1 and the lack of EXIF data implies it is not really the work of the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 21:26, 7 July 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:Admiles.jpeg

 * 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: Speedily deleted as copyvio per WP:CSD. This was a non-free photo from UPI.com. De728631 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Admiles.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader says: "Picture owned by upi.com http://upi.com" Eeekster (talk) 22:17, 7 July 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.