Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 September 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arctic Monkeys at Glastonbury 2013.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Based on the image quality, the PNG format and the dimensions, it seems likely that this is a screenshot of this copyrighted broadcast, rather than the uploader's original photograph. Mosmof (talk) 04:52, 20 September 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: Kept as Fair Use. Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calapan City Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a city logo, I am skeptical it's the uploaders own work, without a clarification. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons This is a work of the City of Calapan, which also makes it a work of the Government of the Philippines. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{
  dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 21 September 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:Lyndsey turner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Almost direct match to http://www.royalexchange.co.uk/uploads/Lyndsey%20Turner.jpg, clarifcation from uploader needed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:59, 20 September 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: Consensus is that under the pecautionary principle the file should be deleted. There's no evidence that it's in the public domain. Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonyvhotz.djvu (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The license on this file asserts it was created by the US Government. This is patently incorrect: the file is the work product of Sony's attorneys, as evidenced by the first page and signature page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's a Civil Complaint filed in the US District Court system as part of a US federal legal case. It is common knowledge that these are not copyrightable. The idea that Civil Complaints are somehow copyrightable is not supported by any case law or case history nor by any legal theory.

talk) 18:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

while it may be technically true that the us fed gov did not produce (as in generate) the work, it is true that the us fed govt court complaints are public documents and not copyrightable. this would be a flaw in wikipedias copyright heading language, not a reason to remove the file from wikipedia in my opinion.

talk) 18:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment None of the {{PD-USGov}} templates should ever be used on items that aren't federally produced. Use a different PD tag, or if you have solid evidence that it's PD but can't find a template, use {{PD-because}} and remember to give the reason after the pipe character, i.e. {{PD-because|add your reason here}}. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks similar to
  Stefan2 (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note The exhibits attached to court filings may also be copyrighted in a manner likely not defensible by the "court filings are presumptively not copyrightable" argument. In this case, it's a TOS document, which surely is a work product embodying some creativity (and like the complaint itself, is surely not a product of the US Government). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I would advise those curious to read the rather interesting article, "ARE LEGAL BRIEFS COPYRIGHTABLE?: YES OR NO AND WHY IT MATTERS", from Mar. 2002 in 2 NO. 4 e-Filing Rep. 8 by Carolyn Elefant (available on Westlaw). While, at least at that time, it doesn't appear the question has been specifically tested, the article makes a strong argument that 17 U.S.C. § 102 covers legal briefs, and that the only reason it's been acceptable to date for them to be reported so widely in online is through fair use. While I don't have solid evidence that this is not PD, I think there is sufficient evidence to invoke a precautionary principle along the lines of COM:PRP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 29 September 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: Kept. Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• no proof that this is the uploaders "ow work" photo is also piblished on this website https://soundcloud.com/977kcrr/kcrr-interview-with-neal Redsky89 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the linked website is dated 1 month ago but the upload was in 2008, they probably got it from us. January (talk) 17:08, 22 September 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. Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• this file comes from Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/melodicrockconcerts/2519503186/in/set-72157605234099587 it says it is copyrighted their is no proof that the uploader is the creator of the photo Redsky89 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because the image at Flickr is a copyvio. It credits the photographer as Matt Becker, but there's no evidence (not even an unsubstantiated claim!) that the Flickr uploader is Becker. The description page for our file also says that it's a work of Matt Becker and associated with his website melodicrockconcerts.com, but the uploader has made claims that he's Matt Becker. If the photo is deleted on copyright grounds, it should be because we don't have solid proof of the uploader really being Matt Becker. However, note that this guy has uploaded lots of photos here, so either he's telling the truth and we should keep the images, or he's not and we need to get rid of all of them — and both approaches deserve some time to research and see if he's proven his claim. Either way, deleting just one of them wouldn't be good. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see several things suggesting that our licence claim is valid:
  1. The file has EXIF on Wikipedia but the file on Flickr does not.
  2. Flickr's largest copy is 1024 × 768 pixels but our largest size is 3264 × 2448 pixels. As we have more information than Flickr (due to EXIF and higher resolution), it seems that we have a more original copy of the file, and this makes it more likely that Flickr copied the file from us instead of doing it the other way around.
  3. Our EXIF suggests that the file was taken just four days after the photo was taken. For copyvios, the time difference is more commonly several years.
  4. The uploader has uploaded lots of other files credited to "Matt Becker" or "Matthew Becker", often taken very close to the upload date. This suggests that the files are own work and that Matt Becker is the uploader's real name. --
     Stefan2 (talk) 09:01, 24 September 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.