Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 March 3



File:Sneha teledrama.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 ⚡  11:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Sneha teledrama.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * larger versions are visible on the internet including here Peripitus (Talk) 09:20, 3 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:Sandra Prosper.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 ⚡  02:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Sandra Prosper.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The image is fairly widely available on the internet, as far back as 2010 according to tineye. Pro image and no exif information. Peripitus (Talk) 09:47, 3 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:Rep. Ross Hunter, WA state legislature, 48th legislative district, washington politician.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. The statement on the website is inadequate for our purposes, which require that the image can be modified or sold. Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Rep. Ross Hunter, WA state legislature, 48th legislative district, washington politician.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * State rather than Federal government image. I can't find any indication that Washington state government images are public domain. Peripitus (Talk) 09:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The language from their website at the page entitled "Member's Portraits for Publication" is: "As a courtesy to the public, the Washington State House of Representatives provides publishable quality JPG format portrait files. Click on a photo or the name below it to see the high-resolution photo. Right click the high-resolution photo to download it. Each high-resolution JPG is 300ppi with an average file size of 658K." I am doubtful this rises to the level of a license we can use but thought it worth noting. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this further, I believe this language is sufficient to place this image in the public domain. While we don't have an explicit tag for this, I've replaced the incorrect PD_USGov tag with PD-because and the reason: "Member's Portraits for Publication" states: "As a courtesy to the public, the Washington State House of Representatives provides publishable quality JPG format portrait files. Click on a photo or the name below it to see the high-resolution photo. Right click the high-resolution photo to download it." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That statement is too unclear to be usable. For example, may the pictures be modified? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking initially when I stated I was doubtful, and if the license was granted by a private party, I would still agree that it was too vague, but the rules of interpretation used for government statements (statutes/regulations) in the U.S., support construing vagueness against the state and in favor of private party reliance. As long as we provide the same language as the state's website, I believe we are on firm ground. I understand if others are reluctant to agree with this reasoning and at least until this is decided, the new tag is at least not obviously wrong, as was the case with the old one. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:35, 22 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:TavaresNahdaOma.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 ⚡  13:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * File:TavaresNahdaOma.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image is visible online on a commercial website here Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 3 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.