Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 September 8



File:Pgipfwbg.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 ⚡  15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Pgipfwbg.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Web resolution, no metadata and a drive-by uploader. This smells of copyright violation to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:00, 8 September 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:Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.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 ⚡  15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is work of Iraq, not U.S. government. Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The work is undoubtedly from Iraq, however the Ba'athist Iraqi regime no longer exists. I'm not familiar with copyrights issued by non-existent governments, especially one deemed to be a rogue state by the international community. Iraq is also not a member of the Berne Convention, therefore the image is in the Public-Domain, see under licensing. A disclaimer could be added so as to prohibit the file from being copied onto Commons, but this image is definitely in the Public-Domain in the United State . The image was taken from an affiliate U.S Department of Defense website  whose privacy policy states "Information presented on this website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." The U.S armed force used this image and countless others in identifying individuals who belonged to the Iraqi government. As there doesn't seem to have been a breach in the terms and conditions, in which it states that material "..may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified", I don't understand the issue as to why it is being declared a potential unfree image. StanTheMan87 (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If a work was made by an Iraqi citizen resident in Iraq and first published in Iraq, then the work is ineligible for copyright in the United States (and also in most other countries). In some countries, such as the United States, only published works are ineligible for copyright, whereas other countries also reject copyright protection for unpublished works. There was an RfC a couple of years ago at WT:C where it was decided that Iraqi images should be treated as unfree on Wikipedia until the copyright has expired in Iraq. I would assume that we should therefore treat the image as unfree.
 * The fact that the former Iraqi regime no longer exists is not a problem. Someone is still the copyright holder. However, if a copyright holder goes bankrupt, disappears or something, then it gets a lot more difficult to identify the new copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * But what if the image is recognized as being in the Public-Domain within the United States? StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you still have to comply with Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 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:Rabbi Shaw.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 ⚡  15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Rabbi Shaw.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * File is not self made, permission given "He agreed it was ok for wikipedia" not enough to consider any other license. Deadstar (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Deadstar (talk) 11:20, 8 September 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:Pzp51.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 ⚡  15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Pzp51.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image of a toy, this is considered a derivative. Deadstar (talk) 13:38, 8 September 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:Queen Indrasakdi Sachi.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 ⚡  15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Queen Indrasakdi Sachi.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * "Self made" license is incorrect, unclear what license could apply. Deadstar (talk) 15:36, 8 September 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:SucharitSuda and King Vajiravudh (Rama VI).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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:SucharitSuda and King Vajiravudh (Rama VI).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There are two seperate images uploaded under the same name. Neither image has a source. No information on author, where/when the images were created. PD-Art license does likely not apply as both are photographs. Deadstar (talk) 15:44, 8 September 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:Queen Victoria Cornet - Roger Webster.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 ⚡  15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Queen Victoria Cornet - Roger Webster.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * "This image was used on the cover of a magazine and its owner then released it under GFDL after the request of the person in the image, Roger Webster. 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)" - It is currently licensed with GDFL and CC-by license. With the above comment in mind, we would need OTRS permission from photographer. Deadstar (talk) 16:01, 8 September 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.