Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 17



File:Four ex-German liners.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 F4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Four ex-German liners.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Historical photo, published 1939; unlikely PD. Fails WP:NFCC if found to be non-free.  F ASTILY  00:12, 17 March 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:TrolliCandyFerrara.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 ⚡  21:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:TrolliCandyFerrara.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative of non-free content (product packaging) F ASTILY  07:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly non-free. Would use in an article on the candy company qualify as free use? I lean towards no. If it could meet fair use, suggest temporarily keeping it for use in the uploader's draft article on the company, but it probably needs to be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:35, 20 March 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:Brush Turkey on tiles.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: Relisted at . Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Brush Turkey on tiles.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

NOTE: This is a photo of one of the many decorative and informative tiles on a public monument to Aboriginal culture and history. It is known as the Milbi Wall (or "Story Wall") in Cooktown, Queensland, Australia. As it is part of a public monument which is regularly photographed by tourists and locals, I believe it should be free of copyright. John Hill (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Possible derivative of non-free content F ASTILY  10:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When was the monument created? c:COM:FOP doesn't cover tiles like this, so we can only keep it if the copyright has expired. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The wall was completed in 1998 and is now a popular public monument in Cooktown freely photographed by locals and tourists alike. Also, many photos of the tiles are available for free download on a number of websites (see below). If it is really ncecessary, I could check with the Cook Shire Council about any remaining copright worries you might have - but this might take a while as we have just had a new Council election and I am not sure who to contact about it. In the meantime, you might like to have a look at some of the websites showing photos of many of the 500 or so spectacular tiles which were created by local Aboriginal people. There are also accounts of the stories that go with them.
 * https://www.google.com.au/search?q=milbi+wall+cooktown&rlz=1C2CHWA_enAU648AU648&biw=1366&bih=653&site=webhp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMpO20wNrLAhXKGpQKHap2C6gQsAQIMw&dpr=1
 * http://www.jeffress.net/jamworks/celebration/milbi.htm
 * http://monumentaustralia.org.au/display/91195-milbi-wall
 * http://www.cooktownandcapeyork.com/do/markets/cooktownpublicarts
 * http://www.cooktownandcapeyork.com/news/mediakitphotos/milbi-tiles.jpg/view

Enjoy! John Hill (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete If the wall was completed in 1998, then it's unlikely that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP. That's true - none of the people who contrubuted to thewall could possibly have been dead for 70 years as they were all alive in 1998. I wouldn't know how to find out who the "author" of any particular tile was - it was a community project and the tiles were made by many different people who together contributed to creating the first monument to Aboriginal people in Cooktown.


 * I can't see why or how there should be any copyright issues here - the Milbi Wall is a public monument available for everyone to enjoy or photograph if they wish. Are photos of statues in public parks subject to copyright restrictions? I don't think so - and, therefore, I don't think the Milbi Wall should be either. If we are going to start demanding copyright clearance for photos of public monuments on WP unless it is certain the "author" has been dead for at least 70 years, there is going to be a massive job ahead removing thousands of photos from WP John Hill (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The artists have not yet been dead for 70 years, so the wall is copyrighted. If you want to upload pictures of the wall before the artists have been dead for at least 70 years, you need to obtain permission from them, see WP:CONSENT. Statues are 3D objects and therefore covered by, but 2D things like wall paintings are not covered by that provision. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi! I think this is all a bit strange. The Milbi Wall as a whole is definately a 3D object. The photo is of one of the tiles that makes up this 3D public monument - so, should it be covered by copyright or not? Truly, this seem a bit of a legalistic nightmare to me and I certainly do not want to get into a long, drawn out argument about it all. I just think it is a shame to have to discard the photo because of such legalistic wrangling. I do feel sad, but it is just too much trouble to be bothered defending one photo. If it must be discarded, could I take another photo of larger part of the (obviously) 3D monument including this tile, and upload that instead? John Hill (talk) 10:56, 25 March 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.