Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 July 15



File:PaolaExnerEqnRock.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, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * File:PaolaExnerEqnRock.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Accroding to the original website, the file is copyrighted. This is Taiwania Justo  speaking (Reception Room) 06:04, 15 July 2015 (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:Irene Marie at 25th Anniversary.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, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Irene Marie at 25th Anniversary.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * EXIF says 'Copyright (C) Paul Emmans, All Rights Reserved'. Stefan2 (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2015 (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:Monstecawikipedia.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: converted to fair use. Diannaa (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Monstecawikipedia.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Promotional image for computer game. Uploader user page redirects to wiki-page for the game. For this image, it is likely the larger version needs deleting, and the smaller version can be used with fair-use rationale added. Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2015 (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:Sarah Paulson EW party 2015 .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 as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  14:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Sarah Paulson EW party 2015 .png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Likely copyright violation with no licensing info. Dismas |(talk) 09:57, 15 July 2015 (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:Angela bassett naacp.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  14:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Angela bassett naacp.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No license info on file page. Likely copyright vio.  Dismas |(talk) 10:00, 15 July 2015 (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:Matt bomer golden globes.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 F4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Matt bomer golden globes.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Lacks any licensing info. User has been uploading a few red carpet photos.  If the uploader is the photographer, I would think that the licensing would be a priority for them to sort out and declare. Dismas |(talk) 10:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a copyright violation, it's an Invision agency photo. The photographer is Jordan Strauss (see AP Images ID 451554392338). —RP88 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2015 (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:Angela bassett naacp awards.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  14:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Angela bassett naacp awards.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No license info for image. User has been uploading quite a few red carpet shots today with no license info.  If they are the photographer, I would think that the license would be a priority for them and would get it stated first before putting the image in articles. Dismas |(talk) 10:15, 15 July 2015 (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:Sarah paulson paleyfest.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 as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  14:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Sarah paulson paleyfest.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No licensing info. Dismas |(talk) 10:26, 15 July 2015 (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:ALI ATWA - from Commons.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, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * File:ALI ATWA - from Commons.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The uploader apparently thinks that people working for the United States government were able to take photos of a person whose location is unknown to the United States government. Not sure how that is possible. Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2015 (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:Burj Khalifa.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: keep. — ξ xplicit  02:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Burj Khalifa.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

The Wikimedia Foundation Licensing Policy requires deletion of all non-free files on enWiki except those used under an Exemption Doctrine Policy. The definition of free applies universally to all projects so, put simply, if Commons can't host this file then it can only be hosted here under the Non-free content criteria. Note that the violation is not based on US law, but on WMF policy, which may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies. 9carney (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-free due to no Freedom of panorama in home country of UAE.
 * Comment wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that 'free' is defined as at definition where it says that 'There must also not be any limit on [...] where the information can be copied.' French law prohibits pictures of recent buildings, so pictures of recent buildings are unfree per that definition. It is irrelevant if the country where the building is located has FOP or not; exemptions from copyright law depend on where the picture is used, and you can't use pictures of recent buildings from any country in France. In this sense, a picture of a building in the United Arab Emirates or France is in no way less free than a picture of a building from for example the United Kingdom or the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See also: Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_3.
 * See also: Files_for_deletion/2015_July_3, an image of a notable building in the same city.
 * Comment: I've never been comfortable with the argument that FOP laws in the U.S. somehow invalidate all other FOP laws in other countries, just because this is the English language Wikipedia and the server farm is in the U.S. I find that argument vacuous and insulting to copyright holders worldwide. Nevertheless, an RfC was held at Template_talk:FoP-USonly regarding whether that template should be used on foreign works. The conclusion was yes, it was consistent with copyright law as currently understood on this project. I debate that, and cite this which notes there is a need to include freedom of panorama in an international treaty to clear up such cases. I concur. I still find it objectionable that a person can go to Dubai, take a photograph of a protected work while standing in that country to do so, return to the U.S., claim FoP protection (even though the panorama they took the derivative work in was most decidedly not the U.S.) and commercialize the work if they want, including the possibility of the work being sold abroad if they so choose. In essence, it makes it impossible for a copyright holder in one country to maintain rights on their works, so long as the person publishes their derivative work in a more copyright lenient country. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are missing a few things:
 * It is not permitted to go to, say, France for the purpose of taking a picture of a building for the purpose of exporting the picture and then uploading the picture to the Internet. It is permitted to go to France for the purpose of taking a picture of a building for your own personal use, though. If the copyright holder to the building finds out that you took the photograph for some other purpose, then the architect can sue you (the photographer) in France as your taking of the photograph was illegal. If the picture was uploaded from France, then the architect can also sue you for that reason. This is an issue between the architect and the photographer, though: it doesn't affect whether Wikipedia is allowed to use the picture or not. Compare with Museum photography which is about the same problem in another situation.
 * It is permitted to use pictures of British and French buildings in Britain. It is not permitted to use pictures of British or French buildings in France. It all depends on where the picture is used, not where the photo was taken or where the building is located, see for example de:Hundertwasserentscheidung and DMCA Oldenburg. Compare with other exemptions from copyright protection such as United States fair use which also depends on where the pictures are used. Wikipedia allows fair use of files even if the use is illegal in the source country of the work.
 * If a picture is used on the Internet, then the picture is used in all countries in which the Internet is accessible concurrently. If the website is hosted in a Lugano Convention member country, then you may choose to sue in any Lugano Convention member country of your choice (see for example NJA 2012 p. 483 – a Norwegian website was sued in Sweden). Not sure to what extent this works with respect to other countries, or how a FOP case would be handled if there is FOP in the Lugano Convention country where the website is hosted but not in the Lugano Convention country where the court is located. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm missing anything. I don't really care about the personal issues, as it's not relevant here. I concur with your assessment that the (1) case you note has no bearing on whether Wikipedia can use the image or not. I concur with your assessment of (2). Concurring with it does not mean I find it laudable. I find it highly objectionable, and were I holding rights to some creative architectural work in a country where it was protected I would be deeply upset that someone in another country can willfully violate my rights and escape prosecution because they happen to sell it in a country that has a more lenient copyright law. The Berne Convention was originally meant to help iron out these difficulties, but hasn't in the case of FoP. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Take for example the right to use an artwork in connection to a critical discussion about the artwork. The Swedish government found that this right only was covered by Article 5.3.o of the InfoSoc Directive ( use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Article ). Since Article 5.3.o doesn't allow for digital use, the Swedish government was forced to remove the right to use artworks in connection to a discussion about the artwork on the Internet when implementing the directive in 2005, but the right was kept for printed publications which leads to silly court rulings where someone is fined for distributing something on the Internet but not for distributing exactly the same thing on paper. On the other hand, the copyright law of the United States allows you to use artworks in connection with a critical discussion of the work even if the copy of the work is distributed in digital form, and Wikipedia uses Swedish artworks in this situation. In which way are local differences in the right to show pictures of buildings any different to local differences in the right to use artworks in connection to a critical discussion about the artworks? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:Non-US copyrights states "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." (emphasis mine). This has historically included buildings which are copyright in their source countries, as the photographic reproduction of buildings is not a violation of the architect's copyright in the US. Commons and Wikipedia do not have the same definition as "free". It's ridiculous to assume they do. Commons requires an image be free in both the US and its source country. Wikipedia only requires an image be free in the US. That's why we have templates like Pd-1923-abroad — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not the right place to be having this discussion. This image is clearly compliant with English Wikipedia policy, which has already been established by consensus. If you want to change that policy, feel free to start a new discussion. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominator seems to state that there is a discrepancy between WP:C/WP:NUSC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, though. In such cases, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy takes precedence. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Not the right forum. Either all of these FoP-USonly images are acceptable, or none of them are. --King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This doesn't make any sense. The works of anyone who died after 1914 anywhere are copyright in Mexico, but I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation wants Commons to delete millions of works from everywhere else in the world to comply with Mexican law. At any rate, piecemeal deletion requests are not the right way to bring a project in line with whatever Wikimedia Foundation policy may be. &mdash;innotata 20:26, 22 July 2015 (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:Curtis Bush in the ring.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, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Curtis Bush in the ring.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Overwritten file: two in one.
 * Photograph uploaded by and numerous others: The picture appeared here one year later, and that other page seems to contains scans from various magazines. Judging from the image quality, this one might also be a scan from some unidentified magazine.
 * Painting uploaded by : Claimed to be own work by the uploader, but this page credits the painting to Robert Alexander Anderson. Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2015 (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:University Library and Information Centre (Panepistimio Ioanninon).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, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * File:University Library and Information Centre (Panepistimio Ioanninon).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Overwritten file: three in one.
 * File uploaded by : Sourced, but the copyright tag was added by an IP. This was less than an hour after the file was uploaded, so the IP might be the uploader, but there is no way to tell. Delete just in case. There's also no EXIF and the quality is low.
 * File uploaded by : Sourced (in the edit summary), but the user didn't modify the file information page, and no copyright tag was provided. Delete as unsourced.
 * File uploaded by : Claimed to be from a website in the edit summary. No evidence that the uploader has obtained permission from that website. Also note that the uploader didn't modify the file information page, so the text on the file information page is not related to this file. Delete due to lack of evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2015 (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.