Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 March 29



File:Sancho Macek.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 ⚡  15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Sancho Macek.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image is watermarked "Bob Delgadillo Photography" Peripitus (Talk) 11:42, 29 March 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.

Pictures uploaded by User:Sushimaharaja

 * 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: With Copyright status unclear, delete both.  TLSuda  (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:There Has Been a Change of Plan (2006).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Raqs.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

One file was created by Monica Narula, the other one by Jatinder Marwaha. The uploader also has deleted files created by Monica Narula and Rana Dasgupta. The uploader can't be all three of them. Unclear if these were created by the uploader or by someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 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:Foto1.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 ⚡ 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Foto1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Overwritten file: three in one.
 * 1) File uploaded by  and : properly sourced in Special:PermanentLink/153943651. Keep this one.
 * 2) File uploaded by : sourced to Jan Solms in the edit summary but it doesn't say who Jan Solms is. No licensing information available. Delete this one.
 * 3) File uploaded by : no source and no licence. Delete this one. Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 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:Grave marker.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 ⚡ 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Grave marker.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Invalid public domain reason, and no OTRS ticket is present. Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain in what way the reason is invalid. SpinningSpark 18:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Something doesn't enter the public domain only because the copyright holder doesn't understand how copyright law works but instead directs you to someone else who isn't the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right that the image author is unclear on copyright law (who isn't?) but it seems pretty clear to me that she intended to give up rights to the picture and is cool with Wikipedia using it. We should have better things to than chase around after non-issue cases like this.  But whatever, I have written to her asking her to clarify her intentions. SpinningSpark 23:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia-only permissions are not acceptable, see db-f3. The permission would have to go through OTRS anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you're making stuff up. Nobody has said anything about Wikipedia only permission. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The person says that he doesn't know 'whether it can be used in wikipedia or not' which may refer to Wikipedia-only licences, but the text isn't very clear. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * She didn't mean that at all. She meant (quite mistakenly) that she thought she had given up the rights to the image to Findagrave and thus they should be asked if it could be used on Wikipedia. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 19:08, 30 March 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:Güstrow Schloss.jpg
<div class="boilerplate puf vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡ 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Güstrow Schloss.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

No files do EXIST having SHA1=3ec0477e227335ee8add04bda78d764b6c27087b.
 * The file that was uploaded to de:Datei:Güstrow Schloss.jpg is equal to commons:File:Güstrow Schloss.jpg, but NOT equal to the file here. No idea where it came from. Leyo 19:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * c:COM:SHA1 reports:

No files OVERWRITTEN having SHA1=3ec0477e227335ee8add04bda78d764b6c27087b.

No files DELETED having SHA1=3ec0477e227335ee8add04bda78d764b6c27087b.
 * Is there some way to do a similar search for deleted and overwritten files on German Wikipedia? [//de.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allimages&format=xml&aisha1=3ec0477e227335ee8add04bda78d764b6c27087b This query] finds no identical files which haven't been deleted or overwritten. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you asked me: no idea. --Leyo 19:29, 30 March 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:Hurdy gurdy.jpg
<div class="boilerplate puf vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡ 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Hurdy gurdy.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It says "From nl.wikipidia" and also "Hungarian hurdy gurdy (enhanced version of Image:HurdyGurdy.jpg)". It seems that neither nl:Bestand:HurdyGurdy.jpg nor nl:Bestand:Hurdy gurdy.jpg ever has existed. However, c:File:HurdyGurdy.jpg was deleted as it had no source. Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but the files c:File:DraailierOpen.jpg and c:File:Draailier.jpg do exist. The file: Hurdy gurdy.jpg is a composite and enhanced image of these two. The original files were uploaded on 2003-06-09 on the nl.wikipedia by User:Arent (no longer active) from a photo of his own collection of hurdy gurdies. The original description was here: . The photos were released under a GNU-license. JoJan (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On Commons, it only says who the original uploader is, but it is not revealed whether this person is the author or if this person obtained pictures from elsewhere. The words "uit eigen verzameling" only seem to mean that the user owned a copy of the pictures, with no explanation as to how he obtained that copy of the picture. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 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:Icterus nigrogularis.jpg
<div class="boilerplate puf vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡ 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Icterus nigrogularis.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * CC-BY-NC-SA on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some years ago (perhaps 5?) I made a list of files sourced to Flickr and copied those with a free license on Flickr to Commons. Based on that I find it very likely that the file also had an unfree license on Flickr years ago. --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 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:1940s advertisement 83d40m w Crosley image .png
<div class="boilerplate puf vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 image is PD-US-no-notice.  TLSuda  (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:1940s advertisement 83d40m w Crosley image .png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Free copyright tags but with a fair use rationale. The free copyright tags seem to be wrong. Is this the entire advertisement? Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes it is the entire advertisement. This image passed muster on July 22, 2014 with a fair use rationale attached. Crosley was a great sport fisherman, are we on an expedition? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is the entire advertisement, then it could be tagged as PD-US-no-notice. There mere act of scanning a 2D piece of paper does not make you the copyright holder and so the license tag is obviously incorrect. --B (talk) 05:00, 30 March 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.