Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 May 22

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Natalie-saryan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: Image is not found on Shahan Natalie Family Foundation website http://www.snff.org/ nor is there any evidence author has given permission nor that the image is in the public domain as claimed by the uploader and the attached licence is incompatible with Wikipedia because of the non-commercial restriction. ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Appears to be a screenshot judging from the pixelation, possible copyright violation. — ξ^xplicit 05:28, 22 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gormanpic2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: Original flickr source http://www.flickr.com/photos/shifted/177905058/ show non-free non-commercial copyright licence incompatible with Wikipedia. ww2censor (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mayte (95).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File was originally uploaded by Gokus Girl (talk · contribs) with no licensing information. The license was added by an IP editor, who claims the image was taken in 1996. A similar image on MSN Music states that the event took place in 2005. No indication that Gokus Girl owns the copyright to this image or that it has been released under a free license. — ξ^xplicit 06:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image and caption both show the event to be the 28th NAACP awards. Typing that into Google immediately returned results that said the 2010 awards were the 41st. Whatever else one wants to say about this, the 2005 date is clearly wrong, and the date posted by the "IP editor" is closer to the truth. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: most likely copyright and no source and no author provided, so we cannot confirm anything. ww2censor (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JAQuinton photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Notable historical photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The man in question died in 1951, so the image was taken before that time. Under UK Crown Copyright law, photos taken before 1957 remain in copyright for 50 years, so this entered the public domain some time in or before 2001. All this needs is a proper tag. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think that without sourcing this photo will have to go. Without sourcing we have no way to tell if UK Crown Copyright applies. If the photographer or his estate holds copyright, it expires 70 years after the death of the photographer if the photographer is known or 70 years after creation if unknown. I've tried to track down better sourcing for this image, but I was unable to find anything useful. It's a shame, I suspect that this is PD, but I can't prove it. —RP88 ^(talk) 13:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely keep: we really reqiure a reliable source for the image that also proves the date as claimed by the uploader. The uploader claims himself to be both author and source which seems obviously false so the author should also be provided. If both are provided we should keep. ww2censor (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pioneer CDJ1000 MK3.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• product/Industrial design - Does this meet 'functional' criteria? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although this design is owned by Pioneer, I created the image using images that Pioneer have published for use in the public domain. I have added the relevant licence Technicalspartacus (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: there is no evidence the image used is in the public domain and we can't check because there are no source links. ww2censor (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Old Logo of 99.5 RT.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed as self - Clearly logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iqra Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed as self- but clearly logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pioneer CDJ2000.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Product/Industrial design - Meets 'functional' criteria? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although this design is owned by Pioneer, I created the image using images that Pioneer have published for use in the public domain. Technicalspartacus (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: there is no evidence any of the images used are in the public domain and we can't check because there are no source links. Besides which it is clearly a derivative work not an original work of the uploader so the licence will be dependent on the original image licence. ww2censor (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: This is a high quality cropped image identical to one on the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553860954043166.html?mod=rss_careers attributed to Adam LeWinter who does not seem to be the same person as the uploader so the photographer has likely not given the permission claimed on the file. ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HiPER baseline design.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I do not see the required permissions to release this file as public domain. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a statement copied from an email written by the project's director that's pasted into the page that clearly states the image can be used with attribution. The email was also filed with ORTS. Please speedy close this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image page states that its owner has put the file into the public domain (basically releasing the rights that have been granted to them by law). Your statement that you apparently received per email states: "Feel free to use the HiPER image. Just credit: CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK (if you need a website link then use www.clf.rl.ac.uk or the HiPER website www.hiper-laser.eu)." That is not the same. At the very least that message implies it requires an {{attribution}} license. However, you failed to explain the scope of 'free use' to the licensee. You state that the images has to be "freely distributable", but it also has to be 'commercially reusable' and 'free to make changes to the work'. That is a much larger scope of 'usage' than you originally conveyed to the owner of the image. As such I do not think that you have received the proper permissions. Also, such correspondence needs to be forwarded to permissions-enwikimedia.org. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission and Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image page does not state that the image was put in the public domain, it states it can be re-used with attribution. The snippet from the e-mail confirms this well beyond any reasonable-man test. If this is not enough for you, contact ORTS, because the e-mail was already forwarded. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does because the TheDJ was kind enough to change the license tag for you. You should really be following the directions at WP:PERMISSIONS when seeking permission to use other people's images on WIkipedia. The last step, after forwarding the permissions e-mail to OTRS, is to tag the image with {{OTRS pending}}. I'll do that for you now, please make sure you've actually forwarded the permissions e-mail to OTRS. —RP88 ^(talk) 13:31, 3 June 2010 (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.