Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 20

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

Not a coat of arms, seal, etc, or means of payment. 72.88.53.147 (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A major general wearing an uniform with all specific rank and collar insignia is certainly a symbol of the state in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you argue that a person in uniform is a "state symbol" this photo of him is not. Unless a photo is aranged in such a way that it is just a direct copy of a 2D artwork the photo itself will be copyrighted by the photographer (or his employer), so while the person in uniform is not copyrighted, this photo of him is, just like any other photo of non-copyrighted things would be. The relevant law just say that state symbols themselves are not copyrighted, nothing about photos created by employees of the state or anyting like that (and we don't even know who took the photo, looks like it's from a NATO meeting so could be a press photo for all we know). --Sherool (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a photo made by an army officer inside the Land Forces general staff building (the red flag behind the general is the official flag of the Romanian Land Forces). The NATO flag is there simply because Romania is part of NATO. So, here we've got a photo depicting a state symbol, made by a state employee (most probably this will remain forever the official picture depicting Ghica as chief of staff). Saying that it is copyrighted because someone created it, it is like saying that a flag/coat of arms is copyrighted because someone uploaded/cropped it. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world of difference in copyright law between creating a direct copy of a 2D symbol and taking a photo of a person or a 3D object. When someone take a photo of something 3 dimentional they own the copyright to the photo that is seperate from whatever the subjet is. Whereas if someone make a direct copy of a 2D symbol or artwork it's just a copy that won't have a seperate copyright from the origianl. So drawing the Romanian fag based on the official description doesn't grant you the copyright to "your" version of the flag, but taking a photo of the flag waving in the wind would grant you a copyright to that photo itself even if the flag itself is public domain. --Sherool (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not covered by the exemptions and is not a free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:12, 30 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 discussion was: Keep but tag as lacking permission. The image will be deleted in 7 days unless evidence of permission is proven; see

T • C • L) 01:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Photo of mural from 2nd half of 20th century by artist Buck Winn, who died in 1979. Derivative; no evidence offered that original is PD nor free licensed. Infrogmation (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo was donated for use on Wikipedia (a.k.a. PD) by Texas State library. I have the email exchange if you'd like to see it. The photo is PD, but perhaps I don't have the photo properly labeled/annotated. --Brownings (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. For images with permission from 3rd party copyright holders, please forward a copy of the relevent email per instructions at

Wikipedia:OTRS so the image can be tagged with OTRS permission. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:45, 20 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 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

I'd tagged this based on the infromation supplied with it, but the uploader informs me the source site may have been using it as 'fair-use' from a third party. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:27, 20 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 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

I've just deleted a dozen blatant copyright violations by the uploader of this image. The user usually just yoinked the first or 2nd image seen in a google search, with false claim of self creation and false license. I didn't find the source of this one, but doubt the "I created this image entirely by myself" claim of this one has any more truth than the pile stadium images by the uploader that have been shown to be copyright violations. Infrogmation (talk) 14:40, 20 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 discussion was: Image got deleted as Commons duplicate despite this listing, nominating for deletion there instead. --Sherool (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found this in the "now commons" backlog. Uploader does state that the image is released under CC-BY-SA, but then goes on to add "(...)Please Ask Author if you wish to publish it" (emphasis original). To me that seems like an attempt to "override" the parts of the CC-BY-SA license that allow anyone to publish it without any furhter permission, and so it should probably be considetred non-free unless the uploader can clearify if it was intended to just be a "would be nice if you notified me when you use it" kind of thing rater than intended as a "hard" condition for re-use. Sherool (talk) 16:12, 20 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 discussion was: speedy deleted as

WP:CSD#F9 F9, uploader claimed to hold copyright, no fair use rationale given or giveable. Amalthea 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Uploader has a whole pile of files that they uploaded as pd-self which are obviously not. Terrillja _talk 17:56, 20 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 discussion was: keep as fair-use album cover. Templated rationale added. Amalthea 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has a whole pile of files they uploaded as pd-self which are obviously not. Mixtape cover pulled from blog which pulled it from who knows where. Terrillja _talk 17:58, 20 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 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

The image comes from an uploader whose contributions are believed to be mostly, if not entirely copyvios, and this particular image lacks essential information that would provide reasonable evidence of free license. Mosmof (talk) 22:23, 20 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.