Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 October 22



File:Rahman Alemi, After Silence(2015).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 ⚡  07:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Rahman Alemi, After Silence(2015).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This looks like a professionally-taken photo that has been cropped. Steel1943  (talk) 00:24, 22 October 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:Eisenach.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. Given the arguments here, a case that the image may not be license under the proper terms—that is, to allow modifications and commercial use—has been fairly presented. This image is best deleted as a precaution. — ξ xplicit  05:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Eisenach.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Unable to verify image source or license. Kelly  hi! 13:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The case is closed. See original discussion here. Please revert your edit. Thank you. Storye book 13:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete In the previous PUF discussion, someone found a page with text in Russian which Google translated as "If you use any materials published on our website, a link is required!" Unfortunately, the quote does not reveal if there also are other restrictions in addition to linking which you have to comply with when using the material. For example, it might only be permitted to use the material in specific situations, or after having been given explicit permission to use the material. Besides, "use" is not sufficiently specific since we don't know whether modifications are permitted or not. What does the word "use" cover? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An option would be to convert it to non-free if the original source and copyright holder can be identified per WP:NFCCa. Kelly  hi! 09:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The image is no longer hosted at the source, so we can only go by the evidence we have. (I would love to have a full translation from an uninvolved party of the information on the source page, but it doesn't look like that is available.) We know that the source site required a link to the originating website, but that is compatible with the "attribution" requirements of Wikipedia. We have no evidence of any other restrictions; Stefan2's speculations are just speculations. The best evidence suggests that the requirements from the source are compatible with Wikipedia's acceptable restrictions. Given that, and barring evidence to the contrary, I think our policy allows us to keep the image. – Quadell (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A licence can only be used if the licence explicitly states that the material can be used. The page only states one condition which must be satisfied if the material is used, but does not specify whether the material can be used in the first place. The statement on the website is therefore useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit  03:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the permission quoted by User:Quadell in the previous discussion only lists a necessary condition: you have to provide attribution through linking. The permission doesn't reveal whether this condition is a sufficient condition. It is also not stated that the image can be modified, so it seems that we have a non-derivative licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading that incorrectly. Modifying an image is a way of using an image. You're imagining that when the copyright holder said "use", he meant "use without modifications", but that's not what he said; he said it can be used (with a link back). And if he wanted to specify some uses that were allowed, while withholding permission for others, he could have done so. He did not. – Quadell (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Use" is too inexact and is insufficient as it isn't clear what it includes. Also, he didn't write that it could be used. A statement that attribution is required when something is used doesn't automatically imply that it can be used in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the website even the copyright holder of the image? Or did they just grab it from somewhere and republish it? Kelly  hi! 22:47, 22 October 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:Southern Comfort Vanilla Spice Eggnog Quart TAKEN ON-2015-Oct-21.jpeg

 * 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 F5 by AnomieBOT ⚡  08:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Southern Comfort Vanilla Spice Eggnog Quart TAKEN ON-2015-Oct-21.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Since the subject of the picture is possible a non-free subject, this may be considered a derivative work of the logo. Steel1943  (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the picture contained a registered trademarked logo, I changed the license from the cc-zero license to that of the "Non-free logo|regtrademark=yes" license. I also provided a fair-use rationale, and reduced the image's size by 75% so that it's very low resolution.I am the author of the photograph.YouarelovedSOmuch (talk) 06:41, 22 October 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 ⚡ 07:03, 22 October 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:Steadmanlogo5.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 but change to PD-ineligible-USonly. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Steadmanlogo5.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Claimed as public domain, but the logo looks too original for that to my untrained eye. Would appreciate other editors with more experience in this area weighing in though. Note that uploader made about a dozen other uploads around this time and most of them have been deleted for various reasons. Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also not specifically tagging it on to this nomination, but any ideas whether File:Steadman band.jpg can really be public domain? Jenks24 (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The text part of the logo is most definitively not copyrightable. The extended foot of the first S might be creative, though. I think it can stay on as a non-free logo if that extended foot makes it copyrightable.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given a logo like File:Graceland S logo.jpg, I think the 'S' in this logo would be just as likely to not be eligible for copyright. — ξ xplicit  05:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Change to PD-ineligible-USonly. Although modified fonts do not seem to be copyrightable in the United States (see c:COM:TOO), they are clearly copyrightable in the source country: File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg was declared to be copyrighted by a British court. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:32, 30 October 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:Josephine Ochoa, Los Angeles CA, 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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  07:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Josephine Ochoa, Los Angeles CA, 2015.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Professional photo, unclear source. Needs clarification of who the photographer is and OTRS permission if it is not the uploader. January  ( talk ) 16:01, 22 October 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:Josephine Ochoa, Los Angeles Photoshoot, 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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  07:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Josephine Ochoa, Los Angeles Photoshoot, 2015.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Professional photo, unclear source. Needs clarification of who the photographer is and OTRS permission if it is not the uploader. January  ( talk ) 16:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Image found here, and it looks like it's by a commercial fashion photographer, so highly unlikely that it's free license. Mosmof (talk) 18:20, 22 October 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:Manics at the brits.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 ⚡  07:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Manics at the brits.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Nothing at the source page says the image is public domain John of Reading (talk) 18:02, 22 October 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.