Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 March 3

< Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
< March 2 March 4 >

March 3

edit

File:KlondikeSolitaire.JPG

edit
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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:KlondikeSolitaire.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
Delete, unsurprisingly easy to replace with a free version (i.e., an actual photograph of a deck of cards arranged into this layout). Redundant to the article in which it is used due to the presence of File:GNOME Aisleriot Solitaire.png. --Kinu t/c 01:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the image but for some reason it's showing up upside down thanks to a glitch in the system. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new version contains the image of the Bicycle card back, making this a non-free derivative work that is still replaceable. (It's also of rather poor quality.) --Kinu t/c 01:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Tommy-Johnson pre-1923.png

edit
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: Kept, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tommy-Johnson pre-1923.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:New York Empire Gold License Plate.jpg

edit
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 - uncoyprightable. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:New York Empire Gold License Plate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
But you asserted it was your work when you uploaded it, can you confirm that was not correct ? LGA talkedits 02:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I uploaded, most license plate images were GFDL-tagged and rarely disputed. Now that you're disputing them, I have to make sure all of my images are properly tagged so they stay on their articles. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way to avoid this is to properly tag the images when they are uploaded, not to simply claim they are GFDL compatible because of the belief that no one will scrutinize the tags. --Kinu t/c 01:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Tipasa remain 2.JPG

edit
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. Dianna (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tipasa remain 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Tepasa findings.jpg

edit
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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tepasa findings.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Tagged {{PD-Italy}}, which states, "If this image meets the definition of a simple photograph and was created prior to 1976 and published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, then it was out of copyright in Italy on the date of restoration (January 1, 1996) and is currently in the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 104A)." But according to the file description, this photograph was published in (not before) 1976, and it was published in an encyclopedia, which I would assume had a copyright notice (in any case there is no evidence it was published without a copyright notice). So there is no evidence that this image meets the criteria described in the {{PD-Italy}} tag. —Bkell (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Cse-logo.jpg

edit
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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cse-logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:FERDAUS.LICENSE.jpg

edit
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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:FERDAUS.LICENSE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Although the uploader claims a generic public domain, no rationale for such licensing conditions is provided. Although in the US, a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code is in the public domain, this is not the case, as it's the State of Massachussets the one creating the picture. Ecemaml (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why you are doing this. Please stop. License photos are in the public domain. MDEVER802 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should I stop? As explained, it's you the one that must explain why said pictures are in the public domain. It they came from any agency or department of the federal government, they'd be in the public domain. However, that's not the case. So, why do you claim they're in the public domain? --Ecemaml (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no reason to assume that this picture is PD, if it was taken by the subject (in for example a photo booth) then copyright would be theirs, if it was taken by the Massachusetts RMV then copyright would be theirs, so absent proof it is PD then it should be deleted. LGA talkedits 10:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: Could a fair use exemption apply? --Ecemaml (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the guy is alive then a free image could still be created or found so would fail WP:NFCC#1. LGA talkedits 19:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, exceptions are often made if a person is in prison since it is assumed to be too hard to take photos of people in prisons. In this case, the photo might be irreplaceable until he is released in 2026, unless there is a way to take photos of prisoners in that prison. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given he is in a federal prison, any 'official' photograph taken by them will be PD so we can be almost certain that one exists, its just a case of getting a copy of it. LGA talkedits 07:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Gary Ridgway 1982 Mugshot.jpg

edit
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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gary Ridgway 1982 Mugshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Although the uploader claims a generic public domain, no rationale for such licensing conditions is provided. Although in the US, a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code is in the public domain, this is not the case, as it's the King County Sheriff's Office the one creating the picture. Ecemaml (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a mugshot, which is public domain. Once again, please stop. MDEVER802 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a source can be provided confirming PD status as it would fail the NFCC. LGA talkedits 07:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The press uses mugshots in their stories all the time. I don't see how this is any different. I am not stealing anyone's ideas or anything like that and no one is being hurt, so this is a complete waste of time. MDEVER802 (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Weissberg familija.jpg

edit
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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weissberg familija.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • The uploader claims to be the creator of this image, with a date of 2/14/2013. But these are photographs of people killed in 1942 in a concentration camp in the Second World War; see Leib Weissberg. It is very unlikely that the uploader created these photos. —Bkell (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the uploader wrote that he created this himself, he might have meant that he scanned the photos and combined them into one image and added the captions below. However, what we need is permission from the people who took these photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated before, Rabbi Weissberg family photos that I own are a copy of the originals dated from 1939 given to me by my late grandparent. Those photos were combined into one for the purpose of Rabbi Weissberg article on the Wikipedia. What license is and if any is appropriate in this case I don't know. Best regards --Bbrezic (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not licensed correctley, no bar to a Fair Use claim. LGA talkedits 23:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_March_3&oldid=1138573557"
  NODES
Idea 1
idea 1
Note 2
Project 1
Verify 2