Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 October 19



File:Henry Standing Bear.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 ⚡  03:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Henry Standing Bear.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No information is given on the publication date of this file, which is imperative to determining copyright status. I have no idea in the absence of publication information how the uploader knows that it was not renewed, but I do see that the uploader cropped the picture to remove a copyright wartermark from it; see his source, . It is possible that the mark is fraudulent, but also possible that the image was not published at the time it was taken but given to them, along with rights to it. There is simply nowhere near enough information about the history of this file to determine that it is PD at this time. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 19 October 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:St. Patricks Church, Centuria, Wisconsin.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 ⚡  03:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:St. Patricks Church, Centuria, Wisconsin.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The only information we have on publication of this picture is that it was scanned from a 1977 book. The tag claims it was published between 1923 and 1963. Where? What are the details of publication that allow us to determine it was published in that time and copyright not renewed? Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 19 October 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:Mr. and Mrs. Antoine Gordon.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 ⚡  03:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Mr. and Mrs. Antoine Gordon.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This was scanned from a 1977 book. It is tagged as free as having been published prior to 1923. It looks like a private family photograph. What are the details of publication? Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 19 October 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:OmniOutliner screenshot.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 ⚡  16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:OmniOutliner screenshot.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Marked as free, but there is no indication that the OmniOutliner software is freely licensed. This image contains significant parts of the OO user interface that would create copyright issues. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 20:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Two copyrightable works here: the image (screenshot) and the underlying work (OO interface). In both cases, even assuming there is a copyright issue (which, in the case of the screenshot, it appears there isn't), the use is almost certainly fair. Use is for illustrative purposes, in the course of commentary and criticism, uses that are both transformative and integral to the fair use doctrine. The amount used is trivial and is essential to the use.  The use causes no harm at all to either existing or potential non-transformative markets for the software or for the screenshot. Not a copyright issue, imo.--Ndovu (talk) 19:24, 21 October 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:Arjumman-mughal-01.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 ⚡  03:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Arjumman-mughal-01.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No rationale given nor any other copyright tag. Image can be found at other locations such as http://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainmenttags/arjumman-mughal/arjumman-mughal-all-set-dazzle-ya-rab#5 ... disco spinster   talk  20:44, 19 October 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:Ecco0016.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 ⚡  16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Ecco0016.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative work of Ecco Pro software. No evidence of permission to create such derivative work. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Use is transformative (commentary and criticism) and has no impact on existing or potential non-transformative markets for the software. Use is clearly fair, imo, and so permission is not needed. --Ndovu (talk) 19:32, 21 October 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:Ecco0019.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 ⚡  16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Ecco0019.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative work of Ecco Pro software. No evidence of permission to create such derivative work. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Use is transformative (commentary and criticism) and has no impact on existing or potential non-transformative markets for the software. Use is clearly fair, imo, and so permission is not needed. --Ndovu (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether use is fair, Ndovu, but whether these images are, as they are tagged, freely licensed. If they are not, we may be able to keep them under non-free content policy and guideline if their usage conforms (that policy and guideline are deliberately written to be more conservative than fair use), but cannot keep them under tag of free license or public domain. This process board is specifically for evaluating claims of free license or public domain. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarity. I'm a copyright nerd, but definitely new to Wiki-editing :)--Ndovu (talk) 05:14, 23 October 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:MagicView Inside ECCO.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 ⚡  16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:MagicView Inside ECCO.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative work of Ecco Pro software. No evidence of permission to create such derivative work.  Additionally, the upload edit summary states that the image was "From www.EccoTools.com", which conflicts with the uploader's statement that the image was his or her own work. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 20:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The image does not appear to be infringing on Ecco Pro copyright as it is a fair use, and fair uses are neither infringing nor in need of permission. 17 USC 107. The use is transformative (commentary and criticism) and has no impact on existing or potential non-transformative markets for the software, so it falls pretty easily within recent courts' understanding of fair use principles. However, I agree that the user cannot be the copyright holder for the screenshot unless s/he is the copyright holder for content on the source page.  The use of the screenshot is probably fair even if the uploader is not the copyright holder, but at a minimum, the source of the screenshot needs to be better identified. --Ndovu (talk) 19:46, 21 October 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:Ecco0018.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 ⚡  16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Ecco0018.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative work of Ecco Pro software. No evidence of permission to create such derivative work. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 20:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Use is transformative (commentary and criticism) and has no impact on existing or potential non-transformative markets for the software. Use is clearly fair, imo, and so permission is not needed.--Ndovu (talk) 19:37, 21 October 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.