Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 May 30



File:Ose Eduardo Verastegui.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 ⚡  19:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Ose Eduardo Verastegui.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * EXIF: 2005 Getty Images Eeekster (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed Thibaut120094 (talk) 00:46, 30 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:StinkingBadge.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 ⚡  03:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:StinkingBadge.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Appears to be a resized copy of this image Strongjam (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be one of these many images:             ... or maybe it's ONE of these two images:  -  Oh wait, those are mine!!!


 * The ever popular and recognizable star-shaped Wild West sheriff's badge, thought to be a Hollywood creation for Westerns was originally designed by the Texas Rangers and fashioned to identify with their state nickname and emblem: The Lone Star State. It was said Texas Rangers badges were made from 1884 Pesos, but the badge in question here is an inauthentic semblance. The quotation "Stinkin Badge" is a derivative from the 1948 film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. It has been in circulation since the re-popularization of the quote in the 1974 film Blazing Saddles. It is not a promotional item nor a prop & it's freely used across many websites. The image & badge have no ownership claims, no copyright, no trademarks or registration of a likenesses thereof. You can find the image for sale on products from both  eBay & Cafe Press. But I hope you purchase it from my store on Zazzle. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing all that research! Your link #6 is an almost perfect match! It has the same black border, lighting and looks like the one uploaded has just been slightly resized by 2px and some JPG artifacts. Other than that it's pretty obvious it's the same shot. Since the zazzle profile you linked to was created two years after that auction in link 6 ended, it's unlikely that was the original source of the image. Seems like an easy Delete. — Strongjam (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly something with a dubious copyright pedigree. As in: the uploader does not have a license and cannot (apparently) point to a viable license for inclusion and only point to other possible copyright violations as a reason why the images is viable. Better safe than sorry. --Jorm (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * COPYRIGHT:  " Artwork designed by j0eg0d. Made by Zazzle Paper in San Jose, CA. Sold by Zazzle." That's my artwork. I made it. It belongs to me. --j0eg0d (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned links don't prove that you created this artwork- what they prove is that you've uploaded them to a storefront that allows you to customise their products via a template. If you want to prove that you created the artwork, you'd need something better than that. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Every image uploaded to Zazzle has a copyright. No further descussion.--j0eg0d (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's blatantly false. For example, I don't own the copyright to the microsoft logo, but I've uploaded a sticker with the microsoft logo on it here on Zazzle. You do not own the copyright to this image because you have uploaded it to an online storefront, just as I don't own the copyright to the microsoft logo. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It will take up to one full business day for Zazzle to remove your image PeterTheFourth because you do not own it. --j0eg0d (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * CONTRIBUTION: Recognized in pop culture fandom. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete J0eg0d Joined Zazzle 1/28/2013. Its trivial to trace the existence of the photo online before that date.©Geni (talk) 21:49, 1 June 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:Don Murray 1956.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. There is indeed no record of a copyright or renewal on this photo, and per the information in film stills, it is not likely to have been copyrighted in the first place. Also, for the record, making someone prove something or "show their work" is not assuming good faith, it's making them prove good faith, which is entirely different (and kind of misses the point of AGF). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Don Murray 1956.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Big copyright notice at the bottom of the image; no evidence that the copyright was not renewed (no indication of what steps were taken to verify a lack of renewal) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you're apparently unfamiliar with how the online copyright search system works, simply ask and I'll walk you through the steps to show that the copyright was not renewed. --Light show (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Or you could just show your work, so that people could assume good faith. Instead of, you know, claiming US PD status over British publicity stills and the like. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Step 1: An editor goes to the U.S. Copyright Office search page
 * Step 2: Click on "Set Search Limits" and select from the Item Type dropdown menu, "Visual Materials". That is the copyright type required for photographs, which have their own copyright registrations. The one for "Motion Pictures" is only for the actual film, not any related photo stills.
 * Set the date range for the few years before or after 28 years from the date of the original photo, which for a 1956 photo would be 1984. However, since I've never found any publicity photos that have ever been copyrighted, I don't even bother with the range and leave it open for all years, meaning 1978 to 2015.
 * (Note: by not copyrighted, I'm referring to the legally required registration, which this search covers. A copyright notice is actually only a public notice of intent to copyright, and the owner has 5 years to register it, or it automatically becomes PD, per film still. And if someone copied and sold the work, the owner who printed the notice still has to register it before they can sue.)
 * Next return to the search page and enter the name of the subject, ie. "Don Murray", with the quotation marks, in the "Search for" box.
 * Next select from the "Search by" list, the "Keyword" option, since that will cover all occurrences of the words anywhere in the copyright.
 * Then select "Begin Search"
 * Review any copyright items that begin with "RE" for renewals.
 * None are found for this photo. So now people can AGF. --Light show (talk) 04:27, 31 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:Anne Bancroft - 1964.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 — "widely publicly distributed" ≠ public domain. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Anne Bancroft - 1964.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Rear of the image is not included, nor is the border of the front; there is thus not sufficient evidence that the image never had a copyright notice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please look at the original upload before it was cropped. --Light show (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a British film which premiered in the UK before the US. There's a question of UK copyright. We hope (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In which case it's definitely not free. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter where or when the film premiered, or where it was shot, since it's not the film that's uploaded, but only a publicity still. In the U.S., this film was distributed by National Screen Service, as stated on the front, and they produced, owned and distributed the photo stills to theaters along with the actual film. Basically, when they rent the film to a theater, they would separately provide such stills for posting or giving to local media for promotion. Their goal is to get people to go to the theater and see the film, not to sell the stills, which they give out by the thousands free hoping to get them published along with a promo for the movie. This still, along with the hundreds of others already deleted from WP, would obviously be PD for those reasons. --Light show (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Read further. "National Screen Service established an office in London in 1926. During the war production was moved to the London suburb of Perivale." NSS GB. Most of the lobby cards, posters and photos from the United States have copy at the bottom such as "Country of origin USA", "Made in USA", "Country of origin and production USA", "Litho in USA", or "Printed in USA" on the front. This says nothing about being printed in the USA; there's no proof that it was. We hope (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good observations: "Made in USA" = free; "Made in UK" = not free. Thanks for clarifying. --Light show (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It's always sad to see public displays of ignorance. We hope (talk) 18:02, 31 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:Rosemary Clooney 1954.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 as per Don Murray discussion above. No renewal was found for this image. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Rosemary Clooney 1954.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Big copyright notice at the bottom of the image; no evidence that the copyright was not renewed (no indication of what steps were taken to verify a lack of renewal) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you're apparently unfamiliar with how the online copyright search system works, simply ask and I'll walk you through the steps to show that the copyright was not renewed. --Light show (talk) 03:54, 30 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:Kitana MKX.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 G12 by AnomieBOT ⚡  14:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Kitana MKX.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Screenshot Eeekster (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 30 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:Kitana iOS MKX.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 ⚡  00:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Kitana iOS MKX.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

This photo was a screenshot I took through my iPhone. This is my own work uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HipHopVisionary (talk • contribs) 10:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Screenshot Eeekster (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes it a blatant copyright violation. Eeekster (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 30 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:Portrait of Prem Ram Dubey, originator of Kosal Movement.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 ⚡  16:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Portrait of Prem Ram Dubey, originator of Kosal Movement.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The image claims that it has been photographed by the uploader. It may have been but even a cursory look at the image will show that it has most likely been photographed from another photograph (the original photograph having marks on it are a big clue (top left)).  Also enlarging the image reveals the half-tone 'dots' used when the original image was printed.  Further, the copied photograph is not quite square in the frame as there are white tell tales around the image.  There is no indication that the uploader had any copyright permission to use the image. I B Wright (talk) 13:13, 30 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:First Map of Kosal made by Prem ram Dubey(P.R.Dubey).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 F7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  13:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC) : File:First Map of Kosal made by Prem ram Dubey(P.R.Dubey).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * Image claims to be from a newspaper. The license tag states that "with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above".  No publication name is shown either on the image or in the description.  A possible source is shown as "Kosal Khabar", but a search fails to find any publication by this name.  The Fair Use Rationale has failed to specify why the image is not replaceable with free media (WP:NFCC).  This image is pefectly capable of being replaced with a free image.  Any reasonably competent artist could produce a map of the area in question.  I B Wright (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I B Wright (talk) 14:14, 30 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:Omalleystainedglass.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 as FoP applies. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Omalleystainedglass.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The stained glass work is presumably under copyright by the person who made it. There is no fair use for this image and freedom of panorama considerations prevent it from being used, especially as the work exists in Europe. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep unless there has been a change of law in Ireland c:commons:Freedom of panorama. Thincat (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wasn't aware about Ireland's interpretation and where stained glass works fit. You can remove this assuming no one else sees an issue.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 4 June 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.