Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

February 20

File:Mountbatten Brailler.jpg

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 ⚡ 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mountbatten Brailler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

From http://atwiki.assistivetech.net/index.php/Image:Mountbatten.jpg

It says that "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". However, this is not text. Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote to them to clarify its status. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 20 February 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.

File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg

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 ⚡ 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg. Note that the file is heavily used. Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of the uses are from WikiProject Albums templates. The WikiProject was informed of the problem with the image and advised to provide a suitable replacement. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is sufficient artwork depicted here (including two nearly whole cartoon panels) at high enough resolution to establish this photograph as a derivative of a non-free work. It's already been deleted from Commons for this reason. Fortunately since the usual purpose of this image seems to be to depict albums or vinyl records in a generic sense, it should be very easy to produce a replacement. There are, for example, many public-domain and freely licensed album covers at Commons:Category:Album covers, some of them for very popular albums. All we need is for someone who owns one or two of them to photograph them in a similar arrangement. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:45, 20 February 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.

File:FYC set.JPG

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 adition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:FYC set.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

A photo of copyrighted books. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Fair Use. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:20, 20 February 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 ⚡ 04:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you do, just fix it, don't bother me about it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:18, 20 February 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.

File:GUYNEWMAN.JPG

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 a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo of a painting without information about the copyright status of the painting. Stefan2 (talk) 00:44, 20 February 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.

File:2005 Pepsi 400 DYK.png

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 addition of proper licensing and attribution. Dianna (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2005 Pepsi 400 DYK.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Not sure myself on this one, is this in breach of the terms of the CC-BY-SA in that the work displayed on the screenshot is not attributed. LGA _{talk to me} 02:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CC-BY-SA violations should be fixed, not deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:01, 4 March 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.

File:Sardar Ghulam Muhammad khan Maher.jpg

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 ⚡ 16:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sardar Ghulam Muhammad khan Maher.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Could still be copyrighted being in a "personal collection" doesn't cut it. Secret ^account 04:22, 20 February 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.

File:Sardar M. Ibrahim Khan.jpg

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 a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sardar M. Ibrahim Khan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

clearly not copyright owner Secret ^account 04:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Image, of the founder and first President of Azad Jammu Kashmir, has been obtained from the public records of The Azad Kashmir's Press Information Department (PID). There is no copyright restriction on this work, as it is from the National archives, and by default, it is in the public domain. Anyone can use, distribute, change, alter or do whatever they want with this photograph, commercially or non - commercially. However, you can give credit to the "Press Information Department (AJK)" for this work, although it is not compulsory. --Sardar Mohammed Obaid Khan 12:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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.

File:Kanchenjungha Apartments.jpg

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 ⚡ 16:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kanchenjungha Apartments.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No evidence at given source of a free license. A source from 2006 indicates "awayatpost" as copyright holder. ELEKHH^T 08:17, 20 February 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.

File:The children's author-illustrator Mick Manning.jpg

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; there's no high-resolution image on the web that this could have been copied from, not that I could find. Dianna (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The children's author-illustrator Mick Manning.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Apparently cropped from a bigger photo, although only a thumbnail seems to be available: http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/english-association/sigs/childrens-literature-interest-group-1/author-interviews/childrens-literature-interest-group-interview-with-mick-manning-and-brita-granstrom Stefan2 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to think the uploader doesn't hold the copyright. You can't even find a full-size photo (which the uploader clearly has). Look at their editing history - it's likely someone associated with Mick Manning and Brita Granstrom, and whoever takes the pictures/maintains the website would naturally be tasked with stuff like uploading pics to their Wiki articles. COI, perhaps, but no reason to assume that the uploader is lying about having taken it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:15, 20 February 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.

File:Jevđević with Italians.jpg

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 ⚡ 21:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jevđević with Italians.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Jevđević with Italians crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

"PD-Italy, PD-Croatia (country of original publication unclear)"

If the country of original publication is unclear, how can you tell whether it was published? In particular, URAA requires publication before 1946 if the country of original publication is Croatia, and since this was taken at some point between 1941 and 1945, it could maybe mean that it wasn't published in time before the 1946 limit, considering that there seem to be so many unclear issues with the original publication. Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the image was given the all-clear at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dobroslav Jevđević/archive1 very recently, so I've drawn this discussion to the attention of the image reviewer from that FAC. I simply made a crop of it to use for the article's TFA appearance, and have no views on the correctness or otherwise of this nomination or the FAC image review. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The public domain templates indicate the copyright status in Italy and Croatia, but Wikipedia requires the photo to be free in the United States. The photo can only be in the public domain in the United States if the photo was published before 1 March 1989, but this criterion is most likely met. Additionally, the photo must have been in the public domain in the country of first publication on 1 January 1996, and this is where it gets more shaky.

If it was first published in Italy, then it was in the public domain in the country of first publication if it was taken at least 20 years before 1996 (i.e. before 1976). We know that this is the case, so there is no issue.

If it was first published in Croatia and is anonymous, then it must have been published at least 50 years before 1996 (i.e. before 1946). Considering that the origin of the photo seems to be unknown, how can we know that it was indeed published before 1946? Also, if the original publication is unknown, how can we tell that the photographer's name isn't given there? If the photographer's name is given in that publication, then the requirement is instead that the photographer must have died at least 50 years before 1996 (i.e. before 1946), and this is even less likely.

If it was first published in Croatia, and if it was protected by copyright in Croatia on 1 January 1996, then the copyright expires in the United States 95 years after publication (assuming that it was published before 1978). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We did try to gather some feedback on Wiki and Commons about those images, but had no luck. The original image is at [[1]], the source is an active web-link at [[2]] pointing to some scanned online-book in Croatian (?, not sure). The original uploader would speak English, but i have never posted on a Wiki with a different codepage. If anyone can read Croatian or offer further guidance , that would be great. GermanJoe (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message at sh:Razgovor sa korisnikom:Mladifilozof (in English and GoogleTranslate-ish) so that might help. Mladifilozof's user page says that he has advanced English, which is a good sign! Bencherlite ^Talk 23:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the photograph must have been taken before September 1943, because that was when the Italians capitulated. My collaborator on this article (User:PRODUCER) reads the lingo (unlike me) and has native English, I will ask him to have a look to see if he can clarify further. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The caption for the image says: "Herzegovinian Chetnik commander Dobroslav Jevđević, in the presence of Italian officers, calls the Chetniks in the war against the liberation army. In Herzegovina, February 1943." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated summaries to reflect that, thanks PRODUCER. Still need more info i guess, but it's a first step. GermanJoe (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Copyright rules on photos in Yugoslavia: a user suggested that copyright information concerning Croatia possibly is wrong due to an old copyright law. The question is whether more recent copyright laws retroactively restored copyright when the copyright term was changed. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyright status is unclear so it must be deleted. The relevant Bosnia copyright law is from 2010, after 1996. This is not free in U.S. but is free in Bosnia. See also: Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Bosnia_and_Herzegovina. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? Although Bosnia's current copyright law appears to be from 2010, the country also had a copyright law before that, and the copyright status in the United States depends on one of the earlier Bosnian laws. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:23, 12 May 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.

File:Koneenicabanerjee.jpg.png

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 ⚡ 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koneenicabanerjee.jpg.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Previously deleted, see Commons:File:Konineecabanerjee.png and Google's cache (which refers to Commons). Stefan2 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file was wrongly deleted. I have communicated with the admin who has deleted the image. I have the original uncropped image to prove it was my own work. RahulG (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who deleted the other file is not responding to my undeletion request. Would you please look into it? Thanks. RahulG (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having the un-cropped file is no proof that you own the original. LGA _talk^edits 09:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proof can be supplied to WP:ORTS that it is uploaders to licence. Would fail #1 of the WP:NFCC. LGA _talk^edits 09:32, 14 March 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.