Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 February 3

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. Considered converting to non-free, however, owing to another image of the organization's shield design in the article, this file becomes superfluous, since the medal is otherwise quite ordinary, and explaining that an otherwise unremarkable medal is adorned with that particular shield can be explained in prose. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ASL Silver Medal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a copyrighted image; see File:USAD medals.JPG for more information. NW (Talk) 00:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to point out that ASL its own entity distinct from the USAD, and its logo is not copyrighted by the Erie School District, and th picture is used on several pages. However,If copyright status is declared; i suggest using a fair use rationale instead of deleting it.--Cssiitcic (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2011 (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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hs-owl hx.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• from http://www.hs-owl.de/hx/ 92.225.206.96 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unfree image per nom's proof. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2011 (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 discussion was: kept as non-free. Though there is a plausible scenario under which this image is free, plausibility is not sufficient--it has always been our policy that an image must be conclusively established to be free before it can be claimed as such. However, the previous DRV does not seem to have overturned the original FFD; thus, we revert to the earlier status, which is non-free image without consensus to delete.

File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 27. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Previous FfD here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per
  WP:NFCC#8, the photo has to have contextual significance. The two prong test is (i) whether its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (as opposed to a viewer's understanding of the image) and (ii) its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Usage of non-free content criteria requires at a minimum a reliable source description of the NFCC image. In other words, the image itself in the photo needs to have been discussed by reliable sources and a sourced conveyance of that discussion needs to appear in the Wikipedia article in connection with the NFCC image. In this image were an iconic image, historically notable, or even sufficiently important, reliable sources will have written about the image itself and its roll in the 2010 Copiapó mining accident, the Wikipedia article in which its usage is proposed. While the image is described in the article with a reliable source caption, none of the text in the article accompany it is sufficiently reliably sourced to meet contextual significance; that is, none of the text in the article accompany the image is sufficiently reliably sourced to show the image's roll in the 2010 Copiapó mining accident. Delete as failing NFCC#8. This can be overcome by adding such reliable source material to the article. A Wikipedian's subjective belief in the contextual significance of the image is not sufficient to overcome NFCC#8, no matter how important, intelligent, or Lettered that Wikipedian may be. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Note: The primary purpose of this PUF is to determine whether it can be considered free content, rather than whether it qualifies for fair use assuming it is non-free. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, conclude it is an unfree file because the listed license fails to establish this image as free. Delete since this image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program and the copyright for it most likely is owned by the company or corporation that produced it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The image is either CC-by 3.0-CL (A Chilean specific version of the creative commons license), or public domain, depending on which Chilean government agency set up the camera feed. Here's the facts.

1. This screen captured image was sourced from CNN. CNN made a faithful reproduction which does not create any new copyright.
2. A similar image, a high-resolution still (the image on WP that we are discussing came from low-res video) is available from Reuters and EPA. Reuters and EPA credit the image to the Chilean government, not themselves and release it freely "for editorial use" - that additional restriction is placed by Reuters and EPA, not the Chileans, because Reuters and EPA are not in the business of free stock photos they only want news outlets.
3. The image came from the video feed camera in the mine. The video feed camera was owned by the Chilean government.

The Chilean government generally follows this license [1] which allows unrestricted re-use with attribution. They are very digital media savvy.

The President of Chile generally releases things entirely free. "Las fotografias contenidas en este portal son públicas y sin costo para el usuario." unless it is also posted to his Flickr page, which uses the creative commons license.

The Chilean state media is who distributed imagery (still and video) from the mine to a common press pool without restriction - but I can't find web accessible copies of this press pool setup. It might help if my Spanish was better, because that would be the original language of the license.

So in the end, while I cannot find the original of this video (it's on youtube from the Chilean government channel, go dig) nor the original press pool terms of use, I cannot see any scenario where this image was sourced with a non-free for re-use copyright.

As to fair-use in a copyrighted scenario, the image is iconic and was used by major media all over the world, which is easy to source if that is an issue. "Mision Cumplida" was a common headline. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Schmucky, I see what you are saying. Let's start from the very beginning and work our way out. According to the
  Chilean copyright law doesn't say anything about the Chilean default copyright license being cc-by-3.0-CL (it says "Every author or inventor shall have exclusive ownership of his discovery or production ..") Also, it would help to have a link to where Reuters and/or EPA credit the image to the Chilean government, not themselves and release it freely "for editorial use". In sum, if you can show via links that the video from which this screen shot was taken was expropriated by the state of Chile or the Chilean president converted it into the public domain, then we would be much close to showing this deserving a free license. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Chilean government expropriated the video feed and sent it to the world via state owned television, and by your statement "works expropriated by the state are in the public domain" then that's the status. That seems to answer itself. It's image 00000402392619 at EPA if you want the "EDITORIAL USE ONLY" high-resolution version that was later given out by state media. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You believe and I believe you are totally sincere in that belief that the Chilean government released it. As Uzma Gamal says - "In sum, if you can show via links that the video from which this screen shot was taken was expropriated by the state of Chile or the Chilean president converted it into the public domain" - such references haven't been supplied we're still down to your say so. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the image number at EPA in my last response. They state it belongs to the Chilean government. So does the NY Times. You think the European Press Photo Agency and NY Times are lying, or are you being disingenuous in ignoring that I've provided something with such specifity? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You stated EPA say it's released for Editorial use. Which is at course at odds with your claim it'll be CC or PD, so it is inconsistent. So no lying or being disingenuous, simply that doesn't actually support your claim that it's free, it still has non-free conditions attached to it. So if anyone is accusing the EPA of lying it's you since they haven't declared it to be CC or PD--82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mincing my words. EPA released a higher resolution copy of the same image and added their own licensing as editorial use. The copy we have is from state television rebroadcast at standard def TV resolution. The copy EPA has is from the same camera, but released at higher resolution as a still image. Our copy is at least as free as EPA, and the claim is that the standard def resolution copy we have was rebroadcast and it was released as PD as a media pool via Chilean gov't state media for reuse. It is a screenshot from CNN. CNN received it as PD imagery and their rebroadcast does not change the PD status of the original video feed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Keep The original tag asserting fair usage was correct and the fair usage was debated with a consensus of keep but another editor changed the tag to a public domain tag. I noticed that he changed it but was waiting for that editor to followup with a citation that it was in fact released into the public domain. Since that editor has not updated the PD tag I would like to revert that change and return it to the fair usage tag that was there before.

Note: The edit difference that I refer to is here [2]. I'm not sure of the protocol for reverting that change while a file is under discussion. If I can revert the PD tag to the Fair Use tag then this discussion will not be needed. Please advise. Thanks, Veriss Veriss (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as interesting as the suggestion that it's free is, we are still full of broad assertions with nothing specific to this image demonstrating the actual licensing status. We can't tag the image as possibly one of these two, so absent a definitive license we are stuck. Fair use is somewhat problematic, if it is indeed iconic and someone does have a commercial interest in it, then they are really lucky as it's a valuable image, we then can't use it in it's original market role by NFCC#2, we'd need to be using it in some transformative manner, which it's current use isn't. Also NFCC#8 seems in question per Uzma Gamal above --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "interesting" it is a very broad assertion by the Chileans that their default license is cc-by-3.0-CL, which is a free license. Unless we find it is PD (possibly, based on licensing of that specific camera, or being released through the office of the President). Since we CAN find specific licensing that is free for editorial use through 3rd parties for a higher quality version of the file, the rest of this assertion about NFCC2 is just ridiculous posturing. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

OK, well what I see in your post is

• "The Chilean government generally follows this license" - with no supporting reference for that assertion, and the "generally" part suggests there are exceptions, so we can't tell what exception this image may or may not fall under if the Chileans produced it.
• "The President of Chile generally releases things entirely free" - which unless the president released this particular image and we can show that, this doesn't help determine the status of this image

So yes, at this point I consider this to not get beyond interesting, since it gives us nothing concrete about this particular image

For Reuters/EPA, Is it the same image extracted from the video feed (at higher resolution?) or is it a separate photo showing the same subject matter? What does "for editorial use" actually mean? It certainly doesn't mean freely reusable, modifiable etc. You also go onto say, "that additional restriction is placed by Reuters and EPA, not the Chileans" which is just assertion as above we haven't any specific licensing information from the Chileans.

"we CAN find specific licensing".. It sounds like we have little confidence in this licensing, since we seem to be saying it's got terms in it (for editorial use) which we don't believe are genuine.

I'm perfectly happy to be wrong, however as far as I can see the licensing status of this image is still confused, we can't tag it as free when we can't show definitively it is free, we don't have a possibly free or possibly one of these licenses system. If we can't show it's free then it comes under the NFCC. I'm sorry you think suggesting we contemplate any commercial value as posturing. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My last response said that the default license of the Chilean government is cc-by-3.0-CL, a Chilean specific version of a Creative Commons free license. At that point, I think it's up to someone who wants to delete the image that this is an exception to that license. I did explore ways it could be more free, I did not explore ways it could be less free unless we took the image from a stock photo agency, which we did not. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Not sure the relevance of your comment, I've not asked you to research if it's an exception, I said "- with no supporting reference for that assertion..". You've still not provided any reference where the Chilean government specify such a default, you've simply claimed it to be the case. Much the same you've simply claimed that the Chilean government released this image. We still have nothing concrete about this image. The burden is on those claiming it is a free image to prove such, not for others to disprove it. And if we can't prove that it is free, it comes under the realm of NFCC --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The default cc licensing of images was provided before, I'm not going to look it up again. A basic CC license is on the government front page, assumedly for everything under it. There is another page under their press or media page, but I'm not going through the business of translating it again. Besides, Uzma's statement above backs up a PD claim, that is even more free than cc.

I gave the the image number for the photographic version as it exists in the EPA stock database. THEY are the ones that show it released by the Chilean government - that is not "my assertion". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You provided a link to the license, you didn't provide a link to a statement saying everything released by the Chilean government is done so under this license. I can provide a link to the English version, doesn't mean English speaking governments use it. Just because someone (the government in this case) releases material on a website under a certain license doesn't mean everything they ever release anywhere in any form is also under that license. Regardless if they don't own the image the license listed is immaterial.
If you take Uzma's statement out of context perhaps it does support this being PD, however that's little more than sophistry. Uzma is quite clear that it *may* be the case but don't have enough information to make that call. Uzma also questions CC being the default license for the Chilean government, which is directly contrary to your claim.
You stated EPA say it's released for Editorial use. Which is at course at odds with your claim it'll be CC or PD, so it is inconsistent. I would suspect it's a different image of the same subject, which of course isn't directly a problem, we'd use that instead, but it would still have a condition attached which would still make it non-free.
We still have nothing concrete on the actual status of this image, we still have a lot of assertion and little consistent to back that up. You are still saying it might be PD or it might be CC, we still don't have a license template "possibly one of these" etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Chilean government did not release these images to the public domain (you can prove me wrong, though), so get back the fair use rational and everything's all right. Diego Grez (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call for Closure This image has been listed for the required 14 days on this forum and the image has been tagged in a detrimental manner for fully a month between the two forums its been listed on so far. A solid determination needs to be made on the status of the image so we can all return to building Wikipedia instead of continuing to feed the ravenous Wikipedia bureaucracy. I am by no means an expert on this subject but I believe that an honest and forthright determination by a neutral Admin should consider each of the following outcomes concerning the image;

1. it must be deleted ASAP as there is no rehabilitation possible,
2. it should revert to its previously debated and approved Fair Use tag,
3. it can be kept under the current tag as long as certain steps are taken within the text of the article or otherwise to rehabilitate the file,
4. the file can be retained with its current tag and no further actions are required to rehabilitate the file. Suggestions for improving the status of the file and preventing further debate on other forums is of course welcome.

There has been considerable debate on the fate of this image across multiple venues recently so there is clearly no bright line to follow. A closure determination of "delete" without explaining any possibilities of rehabilitation or without clearly stating why this file can never be rehabilitated under any circumstances will most likely be appealed. The goal is to find a way to navigate the bureaucratic fog surrounding this file's situation in order to include this image in the article while staying well within legal requirements and appeasing the copyright guardians. Fair notice: I am beginning to have concerns about WP:PS. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur, this has been opened for a longer time than expected, and does nothing but damage in a way or another our interests as editors of the 2010 Copiapó mining accident article. Please close it ASAP. Thanks. Diego Grez (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2011 (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 discussion was: delete. While this would otherwise be a case where, if at all doubtful, it would make sense to convert the file description to non-free and apply a fair use rationale, the file's parent article has been

File:Dovico logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader claims image is public domain per pd-font, but it clearly contains non-trivial graphic design elements. Thparkth (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thparkth,

The DOVICO logo is not protected, however I have appended a further information tag which puts the matter to rest.

Iammatty (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template you added relates to trademark status, which is not under discussion here - this is about copyright. The issue here is that you claim the image is in the public domain. Thparkth (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The only graphical element that might be eligible is the "V." However, I still think it fails the Best Western test. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a keep/delete discussion necessarily - there's no doubt in my mind that there is a valid fair use claim for the image, just like every other corporate logo. The question is whether or not it is in the public domain as the uploader claims. The clock-hand "V" isn't the only creative element in the logo, but having even one creative element means that the logo is not just a rendering of text and "simple geometric shapes". Thparkth (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lindquist 1 wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Removal of images from article disputed.[3] The copyright in the arrangement of the paintings and/or the paintings themselves is held by at least one of the Artist and Elizabeth Harris Gallery, NY. The Wikipedia image summary even says "c. Greg Lindquist 2010" and that "c." doesn't stand for "cute" (it stands for copyright Greg Lindquist 2010). Photos of other's copyrighted work does not give a copyright in the photo. See derivative work. Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lindquist 2 wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Removal of images from article disputed.[4] The copyright in the arrangement of the paintings and/or the paintings themselves is held by at least one of the Artist and Elizabeth Harris Gallery, NY. The Wikipedia image summary even says "c. Greg Lindquist 2010" and that "c." doesn't stand for "cute" (it stands for copyright Greg Lindquist 2010). Photos of other's copyrighted work does not give a copyright in the photo. See derivative work. Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lindquist 3 wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Removal of images from article disputed.[5] The copyright in the painting is held by the Artist. The Wikipedia image summary even says "copyright. Greg Lindquist 2010". Photos of other's copyrighted work does not give a copyright in the photo. See derivative work. Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lindquist 4 wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Removal of images from article disputed.[6] The copyright in the arrangement and/or the painting? likely is held by at least one of the Artist and the Laura Palmer Foundation. The file summary mentions an installation and "oil, metallic, canvas". The image appears to have been lifted from here as displayed in greglindquist.blogspot.com. Even if this is merely a photo of a non-creative, under construction building interior having Lindquist's art in it, there is no indication that the Wikipedia editor Blueprintmemory1 had access to that construction site to take that photo. In any event, the Wikipedia image summary says "copyright. Greg Lindquist 2010," so it carries its on unfree proof with it. In general, photos of other's copyrighted work does not give a copyright in the photo. See derivative work. Also, even if it was Greg Lindquist who posted these images, why would an artist who makes their living in art knowingly give away the copyright in his work for free? Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TorajaArt.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:TorajaArt.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lynchedmen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See
  1920 Duluth lynchings. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lynchedmen.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See nomination immediately above this one on the page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2011 (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.