Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 October 3: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
(BOT) Closing discussions for deleted/nonexistent files: [too many to list] Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/PUICloser
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
(BOT) Closing discussions for deleted/nonexistent files: File:180px-Winsper-blue.gif, File:Windamere hotel Darjeeling.jpg Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/PUICloser
Line 414: Line 414:


==== [[:File:180px-Winsper-blue.gif]] ====
==== [[:File:180px-Winsper-blue.gif]] ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
:''The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. <span style="color:Brown">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section. '' <!--Template:Pui top-->
[[Category:Archived files for deletion discussions]]



The result of the debate was: '''Delete'''; deleted by {{admin|Explicit}} [[User:AnomieBOT|AnomieBOT]][[User talk:AnomieBOT|<font color="#888800">⚡</font>]] 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

orphaned Corporate logo, no source given, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not legit, no need for unofficial images here [[User:Skier Dude|<span style="color:ForestGreen">Skier Dude</span>]] ([[User_talk:Skier Dude|<span style="color:SaddleBrown">talk</span>]]) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
orphaned Corporate logo, no source given, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not legit, no need for unofficial images here [[User:Skier Dude|<span style="color:ForestGreen">Skier Dude</span>]] ([[User_talk:Skier Dude|<span style="color:SaddleBrown">talk</span>]]) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
:This is most likely {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. [[User:IronGargoyle|IronGargoyle]] ([[User talk:IronGargoyle|talk]]) 11:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:This is most likely {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. [[User:IronGargoyle|IronGargoyle]] ([[User talk:IronGargoyle|talk]]) 11:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:Brown">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Pui bottom--></div>




==== [[:File:Windamere hotel Darjeeling.jpg]] ====
==== [[:File:Windamere hotel Darjeeling.jpg]] ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
:''The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. <span style="color:Brown">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section. '' <!--Template:Pui top-->
[[Category:Archived files for deletion discussions]]



The result of the debate was: '''Delete'''; deleted by {{admin|Explicit}} [[User:AnomieBOT|AnomieBOT]][[User talk:AnomieBOT|<font color="#888800">⚡</font>]] 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

orphaned Corporate logo (at least most recent upload), no source given, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not legit, no need for unofficial images here [[User:Skier Dude|<span style="color:ForestGreen">Skier Dude</span>]] ([[User_talk:Skier Dude|<span style="color:SaddleBrown">talk</span>]]) 21:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
orphaned Corporate logo (at least most recent upload), no source given, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not legit, no need for unofficial images here [[User:Skier Dude|<span style="color:ForestGreen">Skier Dude</span>]] ([[User_talk:Skier Dude|<span style="color:SaddleBrown">talk</span>]]) 21:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
:This is most likely {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. [[User:IronGargoyle|IronGargoyle]] ([[User talk:IronGargoyle|talk]]) 11:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:This is most likely {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. [[User:IronGargoyle|IronGargoyle]] ([[User talk:IronGargoyle|talk]]) 11:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:Brown">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Pui bottom--></div>




==== [[:File:Wilshriner.gif]] ====
==== [[:File:Wilshriner.gif]] ====

Revision as of 23:16, 3 November 2009

October 3

Australian military insignia, no source given, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not legit, no need for unofficial images here Skier Dude (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the brigade was formed in 1916, this would be expired crown copyright. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]







This is a work of NATO, not the US government, therefore the license is incorrect. Works produced by NATO are under copyright by default and cannot be assumed to be public domain or freely usable unless explicitly stated. Hux (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference to this NATO copyright that you refer to that is specifically applicable to this NATO video. I could not find any copyright on this NATO video. The most restrictive NATO publications still allow use for non-commercial purposes as long as NATO is acknowledged as the source. The U.S. government license still appears to be correct unless you provide documentation to the contrary. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2009/COPYRIGHT/EN/index.htm Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can the US government licence be correct if it's a NATO video? Regardless of whether it's copyrighted, surely the licence is wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The law in the United States is very clear. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. The United States is a significant contributor to NATO and if NATO does not reserve any Copyright then it seems to me that United States law would hold. International law is more complex but I can see any other logical conclusion. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105 § 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works, "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that copyright has been "transferred to [the US government] by assignment, bequest, or otherwise"? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I did not say anything about a copyright being "transferred". If you believe there is a NATO copyright on this specific video then please provide a reference. If you don't provide the reference and no copyright can be found. Then it seems reasonable to assume that no copyright exists. This seems simple enough to me. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the onus is on us as Wikipedia editors to prove that there is no copyright. I don't think we can just assume that it isn't copyrighted. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NATO allows free download of their videos without any notice or agreement. That seems like clear evidence to me. If that evidence doesn't satisfy you then you could email NATO and ask them about their copyright on this specific video and see if they respond. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're possibly right but I'm not enough of a copyright expert to say. In any case, I still think that the US government licence is incorrect. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow the URL given by Citizen-of-wiki at 02:21, 5 October 2009, you will see that it states: "Copyright Information NATO Review Reproduction Policy © NATO 2009 Reproduction of parts, excerpts or articles of the NATO Review is authorised for non-commercial purposes, pursuant to the following condition: the source, NATO Review, must be acknowledged. On the page where the reproduction occurs; foot- or end-notes are acceptable.". The only remaining decision should be: should the file's page quote that text, or provide a link to it? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The videos aren't from NATO Review though. NATO Review is a journal, whereas the videos are from NATO's online TV "channel". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a work of NATO, not the US government, therefore the license is incorrect. Works produced by NATO are under copyright by default and cannot be assumed to be public domain or freely usable unless explicitly stated. Hux (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference to this NATO copyright that you refer to that is specifically applicable to NATO videos. I could not find any copyright on NATO videos. The most restrictive NATO publications still allow use for non-commercial purposes as long as NATO is acknowledged as the source. The U.S. government license still appears to be correct unless you provide documentation to the contrary. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2009/COPYRIGHT/EN/index.htm Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a work of NATO, not the US government, therefore the license is incorrect. Works produced by NATO are under copyright by default and cannot be assumed to be public domain or freely usable unless explicitly stated. Hux (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference to this NATO copyright that you refer to that is specifically applicable to NATO videos. I could not find any copyright on NATO videos. The most restrictive NATO publications still allow use for non-commercial purposes as long as NATO is acknowledged as the source. The U.S. government license still appears to be correct unless you provide documentation to the contrary. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2009/COPYRIGHT/EN/index.htm Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]














Mawha series related.

No source and no evidence of permission (a cropped version of a previously deleted file). Memphisto (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD release was stated on the original file by the uploader, who also stated he is the copyright owner. We usually accept such statements from users, unless there is a reason to doubt them. In this case, the user's edits were to start an article on the subject of the photo (article deleted as nn) and to insert information about the subject in other articles. As the subject is not a widely known person with a fan club, this evidence points to the uploader being either the subject or an agent of the subject, and therefore to be expected to have copyright of an image. This applies also to the original file, which there was no sound reason therefore to delete. Ty 13:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]






possibly PD-old, but w/ no source, unable to confirm Skier Dude (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has given additional information, but given the date (1925) {{pd-old}} still may not apply. Skier Dude (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no metadata, no source, uploader has history of questionable uploads Skier Dude (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photoshopped old image, no source, therefore (c) claim can't be verified Skier Dude (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG! As I explained in the article's talk page and several other places, this image has been public domain since 1920's because he is public figure. I appreciate the enthusiasm, but you seem to have over looked "details" in tagging files, especially the one I own and CREATED 03:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda (talkcontribs)

This item still has no source - "Public domain" is not a source. Although the uploader may have photoshopped the image, where did it come from? Skier Dude (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's tagged as PD-self, which probably is incorrect for an image that may be PD. Skier Dude (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A picture that has appeared in many books (5 I can count without looking up /thinking about), many web pages and has been in circulation since 1920 shouldn't be deleted under these conditions. Despite your claims, you seem to be randomly tagging things in ways that are not applicable 04:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda (talkcontribs)
Still, there is still no source; which of the 5 books - just give one of them; which of the "many web pages" (specifically the one that holds the (c) for the image - just give one of them. And still, the PD-author is on the page, which is incorrect. Skier Dude (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few of the web sites you can find the image on http://www.lionsroarkungfu.com/tony_galvin_gallery_10.htm, http://www.tibetlamakungfu.com/index.html,

www.lamamartialart.com.au/Masters/LamaMasters.htm, http://www.liuhopafa.com/lama.htm

The books include "intelligent sword play of the lamaist school" self published by Lo Wai Keung in Hong Kong, "Yau Jih Baat Gihk Kuen" (Chinese language martial art book) also published by Lo Wai Keung, and "Tibetan Kung Fu" by Michael Staples (unique publications, 1978) Nysanda (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be and that should end the discussion Nysanda (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]






















School logo, no source given, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not legit, no need for unofficial images here Skier Dude (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the image creator, indeed I have also left questions regarding this image at both the creator's talk page and at the talk page of the article where it's used. That aside, I don't think it's a school logo at all: it appears to be the traditional arms of the City of Oxford (as opposed to the stylised logo used nowadays, see File:Oxford City Council.jpg below), albeit with sufficient errors to suggest that it's self-drawn, and not scanned. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and as such, may be permissible, see commons:Commons:Coats of Arms#Accepted on Commons, item (3). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
















School logo, no source given, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not legit, no need for unofficial images here Skier Dude (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan copyright on "applied art" expires 25 years after creation. The school was founded in 1942, so this should be in the public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]