Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 February 5



File:ELLIOT JAMES MULHERN.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:ELLIOT JAMES MULHERN.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * By the uploader's own description it's a PR image. Image was likely taken by a professional photographer.  Prior publication includes here.  Self-work claim doubtful. Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 00:39, 5 February 2016 (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:Sbtransitcentersketch.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 ⚡  06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Sbtransitcentersketch.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploaded as a PD federal government work; but there is no indication of this at the source. Appears to be the work of a consultancy, possibly contracted by a local bus service. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 01:06, 5 February 2016 (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:Boy Scouts Association in India.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 ⚡  04:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Boy Scouts Association in India.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There's no evidence that the copyright has expired as there is no evidence that the logo is sufficiently old. The PD claim seems to originate from Special:Diff/379344859 by . There are some guesses about the age of the logo in Special:Diff/703359587 by, but nothing definite. For the record, the logo needs to have been published before 1941 in order to be in the public domain in the United States, and before 1956 in order to be in the public domain in India. Stefan2 (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The source given for the file in the non-free use rationales is File:Indtrim.jpg, but that is a link to a previously deleted file. Perhaps an administrator can check the source file to see if any more specific source information has been provided which might possibly help date the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It dates to the 1930s-the present badge with the wheel was adopted in 1951.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Is there anyway to show this? For example, an old magazine, newspaper, etc. which shows the image being used in the 1930s or even the use in a book, etc. which can be used to verify the date of the image. I think something specific is going to be needed to date the image. Same goes for the newer version. If it can be shown that it dates back to 1951, then I think it might be OK as "PD-India". Generally, Commons follows c:COM:PCP when it comes to images whose free copyright status is not clear and I'm pretty sure Wikipedia does the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2016 (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:Scott at Grammies.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 ⚡  06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Scott at Grammies.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This image was "taken by Aimee Berger who shot it for me". It needs evidence of the license given, especially when it follows up as "it is a non-free image". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 5 February 2016 (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:Work13.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 ⚡ 06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Work13.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It says "Copyrighted, Fair Use for Wikipedia.org" at the same time as PD-self. Not clear whether it's a fair use or a PD image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 5 February 2016 (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:Tim Hecker image.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 ⚡  06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Tim Hecker image.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No indication of copyright release. Karst (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2016 (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:NRA Marksmanship Qualification Badges.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 ⚡  06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:NRA Marksmanship Qualification Badges.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Claimed as own work and licensed as public domain, this appears to be a derivative work from this document. This was identified in the original upload summary.  The claim is that the booklet is public domain, but there is no indication that is public domain.  The images are clear derivatives.  See page 32 of the booklet.  This "digital painting" appears to be the image run through photoshop filters and some cut and paste movement to straighten out the individual badges. See also Possibly unfree files/2016 January 28 for another example where a similar technique was used by this uploader. Whpq (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2016 (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:NRA Law Enforcement Explorer Badges.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 ⚡  06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:NRA Law Enforcement Explorer Badges.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Claimed as own work and licensed as public domain, this appears to be a derivative work from http://materials.nrahq.org/le-explorer-pins.html.   The images are clear derivatives.  This "digital painting" appears to be the image run through photoshop filters and some cut and paste movement to reduce space between badges. See also [Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 January 28#File:Painting of Gen2 Honda Ridgeline.png] for another example where a similar technique was used by this uploader. Whpq (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (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:CHIP Computer logo.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: Keep as Non-free logo The dispute over originality is reasonable enough that we should probably err on the side of caution. Besides, keeping as a non-free logo doesn't actually change much as it's only used on one page. (non-admin closure) Wugapodes (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:CHIP Computer logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * I am rather dubious that the figure on the left is not original enough to be copyrightable. If it is, this can probably be kept as Non-free logo though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think its current licensing should be okay. Consider File:D'ni Letters Vs Numerals.png, which the Copyright Office refused registration. — ξ xplicit  03:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, looking at the explanation linked (but globally blacklisted) it seems that one dealt with a lettering system. Would the scope (here it's a logo) make a difference? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:D'ni Letters Vs Numerals.png is a fictional alphabet developed for Myst. File:CHIP Computer logo.png isn't, but it's not any more complex. It's really just a square and some lines, one of which bends into a dot. — ξ xplicit  06:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * c:File:D'ni Letters Vs Numerals.png is lettering, and the United States Copyright Office generally refuses to register copyright to lettering because lettering is lettering, not necessarily because lettering is original or not. See for example this document, section 313.3(D) (pp. 71-72). USA exempts material from copyright for two reasons: either because it is not original enough, or because it is utilitarian (for example, vehicles or furniture). I believe that lettering is exempted from copyright protection for the second reason (it's meant to be read, so it's utilitarian), but not always for the first reason. In particular, see page 7 of the Copyright Office's decision about the lettering : the Copyright Office has some doubts about whether the lettering is original enough, but notes that there is no need to assess whether the lettering is original enough because the application can be rejected for another reason. It generally doesn't seem meaningful to compare something which is mostly lettering with something which is not lettering when discussing if something is subject to copyright protection in the United States.
 * The item to the left in File:CHIP Computer logo.png is not lettering, and therefore we can't use Copyright Office rulings about lettering to determine the copyright status of that item. Instead, we have to look at things which are not lettering. For example, there's this Copyright Office ruling about two CCC logos. The first logo, consisting only of the letters CCC, was ineligible for copyright protection because it's lettering. The other one, with an extra border, was determined to be copyrightable. Also, this logo, which is essentially just a few symbols on top of a sphere, was copyrightable. It seems that something very quickly becomes subject to copyright in the United States if it is not only lettering. Therefore, it seems likely that the chip to the left may be subject to copyright in the United States.
 * Note that the two URLs to the  domain come from c:COM:TOO. MediaWiki complains that they apparently are blacklisted on Wikipedia, so I was required to use nowiki tags above. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2016 (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 Vaughn Daily Bruin.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 ⚡  13:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Don Vaughn Daily Bruin.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * More than likely the author is incorrect. UCLA would more than likely own the copyright to this newspaper. Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under F9. Blatant copyvio of this and this uploaded to a PR fluff piece masquerading as an article. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 22:39, 5 February 2016 (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:Rupert for Lajong.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 ⚡  06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Rupert for Lajong.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Appears cropped from a professional image, similar to the uploader's work at File:Joseph for lajong.jpg, although I'm unable to find the source. Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 17:56, 5 February 2016 (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:Vishal kaith in Shillong Lajong.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 ⚡  06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Vishal kaith in Shillong Lajong.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Appears to be a professional image of a sportsperson. Uploader's date of creation provided (2016-01-22) doesn't match the EXIF (08:56, 23 January 2015).  Self-work claim suspect given the other uploads being more obvious copyvios. Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 17:58, 5 February 2016 (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:Souvik in action.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 ⚡  06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Souvik in action.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Given other uploads, lack of EXIF, and resolution, this appears to be a screenshot from a video. Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 18:02, 5 February 2016 (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:Geneva School of Diplomacy logo.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Geneva School of Diplomacy logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is the logo of this group, and it's unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder. And it is complex and original enough to be copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 5 February 2016 (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.