Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 17

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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. Public domain; pre-1923 = PD. –

T • C • L) 02:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a courtesy relisting. This file was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 May 9, but that forum does not process images. The original lister's rationale was:

This is a plate published in 1918, and the author (Ronald Hopwood) was still writing in 1940, so it cannot be PD yet. The fact it was copied by a US serviceman does not make it PD. Shem (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I will notify both the original tagger and the uploader of the location of this discussion. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Published before 1923 = PD. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely PD, per 1918 pub date... I'm unclear if that date is for the text or for text + images. If that's text only, then it's PD and then image could be PD is it really was published as official Navy work. I'm unclear on that part. DreamGuy (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The image is a copy of an etching, and the artist, Rowland Langmaid (1897-1956), shares the copyright for this image. This will not be PD until 2026, 70 years after the death of the artist! See [1], which states clearly that this image is in copyright. This image is a clear copyright violation, and should be deleted forthwith - it's illegal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shem1805 (talk • contribs)

It seems to be in the public domain in the US; this confirms it as having been published (with images) "during the World War I era". US copyright law is different to British law; everything (more or less) published before 1923 is in the public domain in the US, regardless of where it was published or when the author died. As the Wikipedia servers are in the States, it's American law which is important. See

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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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

A declaration stating that "These below can be used without a credit" does not necessarily mean that the image has been licensed under the GFDL, or any other free content license in which it can be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have to agree with Zzyzx's strict legalistic opinion of the statement, but am unfamiliar enough with the intricacies of GFDL and CC to make a comment based on those. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 08:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is not a free license. --Kjetil_r 11:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe this pic is better than no pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allhailtoyin (talk • contribs) 09:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "This pic is better than no pic" is not good enough. There is good reason to believe this image is not free by Wikipedia's definition of "free image", so it must be deleted if the licensing cannot be clarified. +
  gr 09:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Why not? If the picture is provided for use without the requirement of citation, especially online, then the intent is for it to be free for use. The use of the GFDL is not universal, and its existence not universally known. We're talking about a poet here, not a copyright lawyer, or free software enthusiast. We're also talking about an encyclopedia, and a rather significant person in the field of academic poetics. Why prescribe this figure to a face-less image, simply because you take an over-enthusiastic position on image use? --72.240.132.190 (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. the liscense is not good enough, and the GFDL-tag is not true. Rettetast (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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

Appears to incorporate content from the commercial Alex Kidd in the Enchanted Castle video game. - Elegie (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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

Derivative of non-free Gentoo logo ViperSnake151  Talk  18:58, 17 May 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 R'n'B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image does not appear to have been created by the uploader as stated, but appears on this page [2], (the filename, resolution and image size are identical) and is therefore presumably copyrighted Lozleader (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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

Undetermined copyright status, low quality image, orphaned now that a better quality image with known licensing was found. DreamGuy (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2009 (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.