Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 10

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: All Deleted. Dianna (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All of these images have no source and no copyright information. Since they originated in Hong Kong, they may still be copyrighted until 50 years after first publication. However, we can still assume them to be copyrighted at this time. By the way, I could not list a lot of images because there are too many. --George Ho (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - This article is nominated as copyvio, so I added a list of images. Also, images turned out to have come from http://www.robertchua.com/ --George Ho (talk) 07:20, 10 April 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.

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wavell p.134.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image is templated as being PD but it is not, as the author has not been dead for 70 years as is required for it to be PD in its country of origin (the UK). The image does not qualify for fair use, as a free image could readily be created using an open source map. Dianna (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Made in 1933, so the US copyright lasts for 95 years since publication as the author wasn't dead before 1926. --
  Stefan2 (talk) 00:30, 11 April 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.

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⚡ 03:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stefan karl 073 small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a publicity photo that the uploader claims to have the copyright to release into the public domain, but there's no evidence that is the case. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:49, 10 April 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.

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⚡ 03:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marion Aunor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Professional studio shot, previous published elsewhere. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree there is no reason to think the uploader has copyright. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:26, 13 April 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.

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:1963 Valletta and Malta international Charlie Williams.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Old photo of footballer from 1963. I am unable to find the source of the image online. The small size makes me think thus may be a crop from a larger image. It's unlikely the uploader is the original photographer or copyright holder. Dianna (talk) 13:07, 10 April 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.

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⚡ 06:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:School-logo2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly a logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 10 April 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.

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⚡ 06:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:School-logo3.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly a logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:20, 10 April 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.

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⚡ 06:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:School-logo5.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a clearly a logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:21, 10 April 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.

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 an OTRS ticket. Dianna (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harriet Barnes Pratt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This photo was taken in 1946 (or 1956). Either way, the uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder. Dianna (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is the the Vertical File for Harriet Barnes Pratt in the New York Botanical Garden library. I am a library volunteer and am creating a biography of Mrs. Pratt at the request of the Acquisitions Librarian. He told me that the NYBG owns the copyright of the photo and that it may be posted on Wikipedia for free use by all. Steina01(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some problems with the way you templated the file, as the licenses currently indicate that you personally are the copyright holder and have released it under license. If the NYBG owns the copyright, the file description needs to say so, and we need to get a release from them. The best thing to do is to get an OTRS ticket in place on the file. Instructions on how to do this can be found at commons:Commons:OTRS. Also, the Description field says the photo was taken in 1956 and the Date field says 1946. Which is right? -- Dianna (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on the user's talk page requesting that they have the copyright holder send a statement of permission. --B (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct date is 1956. My supervisor at the NYBG has sent the proper release. I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia and hope that you will be patient if I am slow in getting things done properly. Thanks,Alan. Steina01

I've received and processed the OTRS email, which looks fine.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:10, 26 April 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.

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: File does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Scott Avenue street sign.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Sourced to "Google Maps" with an invalid claim of being public domain. Eeekster (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: image was moved to File:David Scott Avenue.png and then deleted as F9. -- Dianna (talk) 18:06, 12 April 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.

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: Nomination withdrawn. Dianna (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sleeping Beauty Castle, Disneyland, Paris.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I can't find any evidence on the source website that the image has been released under license. Also, there's no freedom of panorama in France. Dianna (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source of this image is here(You can see the licensing information of this image, not there), and unlike Wikimedia Commons, the image is acceptable on English Wikipedia per this license tag(This template is for photos of copyrighted buildings in countries or regions without freedom of panorama. The lack of FOP precludes the image from being uploaded to Commons, but the English Wikipedia will accept it under US law. If the country or region where the building is located has a usable FOP provision, please consider uploading to Commons instead.), also please see this discusstion --Puramyun31 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I looked and could not find that information. -- Dianna (talk) 00:10, 11 April 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.

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

File:Fife at Singapore.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claim of "own work" less than credible. Eeekster (talk) 23:15, 10 April 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.

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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dorsey Station on MARC Camden Line.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader stipulates that removal of the watermark is not allowed: "only as long as the branded date is not hidden or tampered from the image's original source". Thus the file is not free enough to be uploaded here. Dianna (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems that the image has three licences: GFDL, CC-BY-SA and a licence which limits derivative works such as cropping. The first two licences are OK whereas the third one is not, but as the image has two OK licences, it may be possible to simply ignore the third licence. --
  Stefan2 (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question - Is there any evidence the image was used somewhere else? The only reason I can think of for these legal notices is that the uploader specifically wants the watermark in the image. -------User:DanTD (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that the Creative Commons and GNU licenses allow derivative works to be created, and this could potentially involve removal of the watermark, which the uploader has requested not be removed. -- Dianna (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, a potential use could be to illustrate an article about exit signs, in which case you would probably crop out the exit sign and remove everything else. --
    Stefan2 (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Regardless of whether the uploader's request is legally enforcible in light of their chosen license, it's clear that their desire, for whatever unknowable reason, is that the date not be removed. Wikipedia has no interest in images with such watermarks and so we should simply delete the image if our needs and the user's wishes cannot be brought into alignment. I have asked the user directly at their talk page what their reason is for this request, so we can see if we get an answer ... but if none is forthcoming, we should delete this. --B (talk) 03:35, 18 April 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.

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

File:Fife Commissioning Scott.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly invalid claim of public domain and no useful source information. Eeekster (talk) 23:35, 10 April 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.

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

File:Seraph Operation Mincemeat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly invalid reason for claim of public domain and no useful source information. Eeekster (talk) 23:38, 10 April 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.

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

File:Polaris intercontinental ballistic missile.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly invalid reason for claim of public domain and no useful source information. Eeekster (talk) 23:39, 10 April 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.