Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Audemus Defendere (talk | contribs) at 04:18, 14 December 2008 (→Image:Troyking3.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 23 November 25 >

November 24

Image:Empress of Japan.jpg

While this image likely passes Canadian public domain, it does not likely pass public domain in the US, making it unfree where it counts, since Wikimedia servers are US-based. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this passes {{PD-US-1996}}, so it remains free. Anything public domain in its country of origin before 1996 is also in the public domain in the U.S. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo, as the name implies, and as the source website imply, shows the Ship when named Empress of Japan, then the photo was taken in 1942 or before and therefore would be public domain.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kept - Garion96 (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Craig WIlliams at McCain Rally.jpg

Alleged source does not include image in question. (Additionally, all images at "source" URL are copyrighted by the AP.)) It is unlikely that the image was ever released under a free license. --HoboJones (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rendell of Pa.jpg

Alleged source does not include image in question. It is unlikely that the image was ever released under a free license.--HoboJones (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's a public figure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.69.204 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the photographer, not the subject, who matters here. Qqqqqq (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Maya Soetoro-Ng.jpg

Alleged source does not include image in question. It is unlikely that the image was ever released under a free license. — HoboJones (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It appears here credited to a Getty Images photog. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. Protonk (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yin Chengzong.jpg

No reason why this image would be in the public domain. Image is a living personal so no real fair use argument. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piano Accompanied Red Lantern.jpg

No reason why this would be in the public domain. It would be a very weak fairuse argument. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yousef Beidas.jpg

I'm not sure if a "public shareholder document" would be determinative of copyright status. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Khalil Beidas.jpg

No reason why this would be in the public domain. Beidas died in 1949. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends on what laws now control copyrights from British-controlled (or possibly U.N.-controled) Palestine. If it is a British Copyright, then you are correct and the copyright is likely still valid. If it is an Israeli copyright, then this would be in the public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted - lack of info. Garion96 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Buddha book jacket.jpg

Uploader claims work as own, however the copyright is likely to belong to the publisher or the artist of the work. JD554 (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oystercard.JPG

Incorporates non-free images beyond incidental use Stifle (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The uses do seem incidental and the logos would likely fall under {{PD-textlogo}} anyway. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the Ikea logo which is a registered trade mark is covered by pd-textlogo. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IKEA is text within a simple oval within a rectangle. Simple geometric shapes aren't copyrightable either, and the fact that it is a registered trademark is not relevant. There are plenty of registered trademarks which are also PD-textlogos... IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletet per Stifle. Garion96 (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mitt Romney.jpg

Alleged source does not include image in question. Very unlikely that this image was ever released under a free license. Author is tagged as "US Embassy"--unlikely that the photo was taken by a US Embassy official in his official capacity. — HoboJones (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed copyvio. Image data says "U.S. Republican presidential candidate former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney pauses while delivering an address titled, "Faith in America" at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas December 6, 2007. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi (UNITED STATES)" and "© Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters"--HoboJones (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't speedy this because it is linked in too many high profile pages. I would prefer that someone from WP:WikiProject Mitt Romney swing by and replace the image with a free one. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleared from all pages and templates.I have tagged for speedy.--HoboJones (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the help. Protonk (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kenneth street.jpg

The author could not have been dead 100 years if this was taken in the 1930s. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong tag certainly, but I think this falls under {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it could be {{PD-Australia}} http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/item/itemDetailPaged.aspx?itemID=413945. Bidgee (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kept per Bidgee. Garion96 (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Troyking3.jpg

Needs OTRS permission. Garion96 (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    • And this subtle "inclusion" of another picture I uploaded comes after the image page was edited to show clear examples of where the image has been freely distributed for publicity purposes, without reservation of rights, and thus released into the public domain by operation of law. Res ipsa loquitor. Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the information clearly indicates, this is a publicity photo of a politician. The subject of the photo, the original right holder, had it created for the express purpose of having it recirculated and republished as often as possible. Under these circumstances, whatever copyright existed is released and extinguished as a matter of law. cf., Independent Living Aids v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 124, 126 (E.D. N.Y. 1997)(publicity photos and manufacturer-supplied literature distributed by manufacturers used in catalogs by distributors as not subject to copyright). It might be helpful if Wikipedia had a "tag" to indicate these precise circumstances, but "Public Domain" is the closest available - and to the extent the release places the image in the public domain, it is not per se inaccurate.Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That however is totally irrelevant since recirculated and republished is not enough. Basically public usage is NOT public domain. Garion96 (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, it is relevant. If any copyrighted material is placed into public circulation with the intent that it be freely republished, the copyright to it is extinguished, and released into the public domain. Stuff v. E. C. Publ'ns, Inc., 342 F.2d 143 (2nd Cir. 1965); Jackson v. MPI Home Video, 694 F. Supp. 483, 490 (N.D. Ill. 1988). see generally, D. Nimmer, 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.06 (2008). To say that "public usage is NOT public domain," without considering other material facts I provided, is faulty legal analysis. This image, and the other images you tagged, are publicity photos the original copyright holders - politicians who love to see their pictures everywhere - want to be reproduced. Their acts release their copyrights into the public domain, just as effectively as Wiki uploaders loading their own snapshots, who click the release on the upload page, do. Audemus Defendere (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they might "love to see their pictures everywhere - want to be reproduced" But they usually don't want their pictures to be altered (derivative work) or that it can be used for commercial purpuses. With images in the PD you can do that, with images for public usage, you generally can't. See also this failed guideline/essay, especially the talk page of that page. None of the cases you mentioned supports that the images are in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confession: I didn't pick all the way through the talk page, though it sounds like I might have been able to make some contribution when it was current. The topic certainly generated its share of heat. And the image of (to use the phrase from the Talk) "Wikirazzi" stalking these politicians for photos did occur to me before I read it. Not to extend this thread to the length of that Talk, it's black-letter copyright law that a rightholder can abandon her copyright. All courts have agreed that this is effected when manifest by overt acts of the rightholder:
"Conversely, the wide and general circulation of copies of a work by the copyright owner, or with his acquiescence, without a copyright notice affixed thereto may constitute an overt act indicating an intent to abandon copyright even if such lack of notice does not result in a forfeiture of copyright by operation of law. This was held to have occurred where over a long period of time the copyright owner did not attempt to prevent others from infringing his copyright." D. Nimmer, 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.06 (2008).
The E.C Publications case I cited supra illustrates this. The case involved use of the sketch today universally known as Alfred E. Neuman. (The case is mentioned without cite in the article; I should edit it, no?) According to the opinion:
"The court, however, found it established that a great volume of nearly identical prints had appeared over a long period and that plaintiff's husband had been most derelict in preventing others from infringing his copyright. These findings, borne out by the evidence, support the inference suggested by the trial court that the copyright owner authorized or acquiesced in the wide circulation of the copies without notice. On this record we must hold that defendants have met their burden of showing circulation of copies without notice, acquiesced in by the copyright holder. See Nimmer, supra, § 146. The caricature was thereby dedicated to the public, barring any suit for infringement by plaintiff." 342 F.2d at 144-145 (emphasis added).
Of course, where the rightholder is distributing publicity photos with the specific intent they be freely circulated, the requisite intent is even clearer. And when a copyright is abandoned, the image reverts to the public domain, same as it does at the expiration of the copyright term. (So, yes, the cases do support a finding of public domain.) I know that where, for an example, J Lo's or Nicole Kidman's publicists send out photos, they are careful to reserve rights, so as not to have their clients appearing in unauthorized, uncompensated ads. But it's a different milieu, and a different legal result, when (as here) the Attorney General of Alabama sends this pic to every rural paper in the state with his latest press release telling how tough he is on crime. (And I have seen this very pic in small town weeklies.) These images are clearly in the public domain, so the whole whirling-dervish fair use debate is unnecessary. Perhaps what is needed here is common sense, not some puritanical dedication to an ideal like "all free use" or "no risk of infringement." Any image we put in under fair use, however clearly so to the copyright bar, bears some remote risk of a claim. Wikipedia will be a far less valuable resource if it allows paranoia and linear zealotry to "free use" to restrict its content. Audemus Defendere (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information clearly indicates that this is a publicity photo, but that information was supplied by the uploader and the statement Released to public domain for publicity and press use, all rights released by owner is unsourced which is why evidence of release into the public domain is required. Freely available for publicity is not the same as public domain release for example use of altered images for negative publicity or for commercial use. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think about this for a minute. "for example use of altered images for negative publicity ..." Many, if not most, "negative" political ads that show the attacked candidate use a publicity photo supplied by the candidate in a press kit, website, etc. If there was any copyright lawyer, anywhere, who thought these photos hadn't been released into the public domain, every attack ad would be hit with an infringement action, which wouldn't be subject to the actual malice standard of a defamation action. Not only do I not find any such case in Nimmer, nor have I ever heard or read of one, a member of my former firm advised an angry candidate that he had no action for infringement of his press kit photo for that very reason. I keep seeing demands for a "release." I don't know many more ways to rephrase this: the conduct of distributing publicity photos, which has not been disupted in this thread, is as effective a "release" as a document, executed by the subject, photographer, camera maker, and attested by forty bishops before personal delivery to Jimbo Wales. While I have yet to see a single legal authority to the contrary cited, I will provide one more example, involving an infringement action over - guess what? - pubilicity photos of Marilyn Monroe distribtued widely to, and published in, newspapers to publicize one of her movies. Not only did the party claiming copyright lose, the alleged infringer was granted summary judgment holding the photos to be in the public domain. In the court's words:
Defendant argues the publicists and studios not only had the right to distribute copies of the photographs, but distribution was the very reason Milton Greene provided the photographs to them. (See, e.g., Thomas Decl. Ex. H at 80, 82, 84-88.) Defendant contends that, because distribution of the photographs was not prohibited -- but actually encouraged -- Plaintiff cannot show limited publication. Defendant also contends Plaintiff, in opposition, "ignores entirely the final, critical prong" of the limited publication test. (Def.'s Reply at 16.)
Defendant has demonstrated Plaintiff cannot meet the third element of the limited publication test. Because all three of the elements must the shown to exist, here "the distribution may not be deemed limited and the copyright will not be valid." Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc., 288 F.Supp.2d at 556.
In sum, Plaintiff has not met the validity element of its copyright infringement claim. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement is GRANTED. Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. BPI Commc'ns, Inc., 378 F.Supp.2d 1189, 1199-1200 (C.D. Cal. 2005)(emphasis added)(translation for laypersons: "validity element" means the copyright was extinguished and the photos were in the public domain).
Some of the phraseology on this page is indicative of laypersons. While I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor am I a copyright specialist, I have represented clients in both transactional and litigation matters in copyright. And if I thought Wikipedia (or I) had any legal issue with these photos, I wouldn't have uploaded them. In the meantime, it might be a good idea if my watchlist didn't indicate systematic, targeted editing of my contributions, both photographic and textual. Audemus Defendere (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I hate having to keep counting indents.) As a further thought, I am going to offer some changes to the explanation entry on this photo. If they make anyone feel better, I will replicate them on the other image pages linked on this project page. Maybe what we need is for an upload relying on release by conduct to set out some basis for that, as I did on the image page. Audemus Defendere (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle's statement indicates that he (1) did not read the above discussion carefully, if at all, (2) is patheticlaly ignorant of copyright law, or (3) merely uses his admin powers to enjoy power the real world wisely denies him. As of this post, Wikipedia has proven itself a waste of my time. Not a single point I made, and supported with legal authority, has been controverted. No enterprise that gives power to such ignorance is worthy of my time and sacrifice. May it fail miserably and be forgotten in the footnotes of history. --Audemus Defendere (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nancy_Worley3.jpg

No evidence of PD Garion96 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the information clearly indicates, this is a publicity photo of a politician. The subject of the photo, the original right holder, had it created for the express purpose of having it recirculated and republished as often as possible. Under these circumstances, whatever copyright existed is released and extinguished as a matter of law. cf., Independent Living Aids v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 124, 126 (E.D. N.Y. 1997)(publicity photos and manufacturer-supplied literature distributed by manufacturers used in catalogs by distributors as not subject to copyright). It might be helpful if Wikipedia had a "tag" to indicate these precise circumstances, but "Public Domain" is the closest available - and to the extent the release places the image in the public domain, it is not per se inaccurate.Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is stated that the image was created by the uploader that is clearly not the case and I understand that you say it was a publicity image and freely circulated but it is still not clear that it is in the public domain. Freely available is not the same as public domain, and whatever the original purpose I cant see the intention of it being released for commercial use and by for example rival politicians or in an advertising campaigns is explicit in the release. The statement Released to public domain for publicity and press use, all rights released by owner is unsourced which is why evidence of release into the public domain is required. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion above re: Troyking3.jpg. Audemus Defendere (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted for the same reason. Stifle (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gadsden_Times_Front1.jpg

Needs OTRS permission Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The authorization for this usage is clearly indicated on the image page. The desk and cell numbers of the individual, the news editor of the newspaper portrayed in the image, are even provided. I note further that the image upload page has been modified since the upload of this image, to provide the option of tagging a newspaper front page as fair use under similar circumstances. This change reflects a correct understanding of copyright law, and is much needed for articles about newspapers and magazines. The fair use option not being available on the menu at the time of upload, public domain was used as the nearest analog. I have no problem with the image being changed to a fair use tag, but in either case its deletion is not called for.Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permission email needs to be sent to OTRS or the image should be changed to fair use with an appropriate rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to fair use per suggestion. Please advise here if anything else needs fixing. Audemus Defendere (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now it has a fair use rationale it should be kept but I would suggest that 2400 x 4399 (which does not agree with the low resolution = yes in the rationale) is far to big for fair use and recommend it be uploaded at a smaller size. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. There's something weird about this image, perhaps arising from its origin as a .pdf. The pre-replacement version wouldn't show as big (or hi res) in my image software as it would on the Wiki page. But I think the shrinking fixed that. Audemus Defendere (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. I have shrunk this image to the point that everything except the banner and headlines are totally illeglible, then re-uploaded it. But when I click on the full enlargement on here, BOOM! it's supersized. And legible. Any ideas? Audemus Defendere (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept as fair use, but needs to be downsized. Stifle (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tommy_Battle3.jpg

needs OTRS permission Garion96 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the information clearly indicates, this is a publicity photo of a politician. The subject of the photo, the original right holder, had it created for the express purpose of having it recirculated and republished as often as possible. Under these circumstances, whatever copyright existed is released and extinguished as a matter of law. cf., Independent Living Aids v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 124, 126 (E.D. N.Y. 1997)(publicity photos and manufacturer-supplied literature distributed by manufacturers used in catalogs by distributors as not subject to copyright). It might be helpful if Wikipedia had a "tag" to indicate these precise circumstances, but "Public Domain" is the closest available - and to the extent the release places the image in the public domain, it is not per se inaccurate.Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is stated that the image was created by the uploader that is clearly not the case and I understand that you say it was a publicity image and freely circulated but it is still not clear that it is in the public domain. Freely available is not the same as public domain, and whatever the original purpose I cant see the intention of it being released for commercial use and by for example rival politicians or in an advertising campaigns is explicit in the release. Which is why evidence of release into the public domain is required. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This image is proving a little more problematic than some of the others discussed on this project page. The campaign website where I got it is now down, and redirects to his official city webpage, where the image apparently doesn't exist. Likewise, the local news blog where I saw it has recycled its server space. I am trying to find another pic for the article, but he's not been mayor long enough to have a lot of public domain pics out there, like this one. Audemus Defendere (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted for the reason noted above. Stifle (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beth_Chapman2.jpg

No evidence of PD on source. Garion96 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the information clearly indicates, this is a publicity photo of a politician. The subject of the photo, the original right holder, had it created for the express purpose of having it recirculated and republished as often as possible. Under these circumstances, whatever copyright existed is released and extinguished as a matter of law. cf., Independent Living Aids v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 124, 126 (E.D. N.Y. 1997)(publicity photos and manufacturer-supplied literature distributed by manufacturers used in catalogs by distributors as not subject to copyright). It might be helpful if Wikipedia had a "tag" to indicate these precise circumstances, but "Public Domain" is the closest available - and to the extent the release places the image in the public domain, it is not per se inaccurate.Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is stated that the image was created by the uploader that is clearly not the case and I understand that you say it was a publicity image and freely circulated but it is still not clear that it is in the public domain. Freely available is not the same as public domain, and whatever the original purpose I cant see the intention of it being released for commercial use and by for example rival politicians or in an advertising campaigns is explicit in the release. Which is why evidence of release into the public domain is required. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the same changes to the image page, as indicated on my comment above regarding the Troy King image, showing at least one example of public domain release. And for the record, a Google Image search of "Beth Chapman" forced me to look at about a zillion pics of Beth Chapman, the wife of Dog the Bounty Hunter. I better see some props for my sacrifice in the name of Wikipedia. Audemus Defendere (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it is an example of that image in the public domain as the page quoted is copyrighted. Would be a lot better if you had an email into OTRS from a source that clearly states the provenance and release of the image. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright Law 101 back in session. The fact that the cited webpage claims copyright doesn't mean they have copyright over the picture incorporated into their page - it's still public domain. Perhaps a clearer example: No one disputes that Shakespeare's plays are in the public domain. I can create an edition of those plays with my own footnotes and commentary, and copyright it. But my copyright is limited to my original contributions to the organic work. My footnotes (analogous to the layout, text, etc. in the linked webpage) do not give me copyright to Titus Andronicus. The webpage's copyright in its layout gives it no claim to copyright in the public domain content it incorporates. The result is no different than if the copyrighted webpage included a US Government or other public-domain-origin image. (In fact, the page at issue - a county Republican Party page - includes pictures of GOP Senators and Representatives that are likely just that.) see generally, D. Nimmer, 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 3.06 (2008). Audemus Defendere (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per the previous items — publicity does not mean public domain. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ADA Tejas.jpg

Image was tagged with a no permission notice uploader removed it with the note that as it was release under the Indian Right To Information Act it was in the public domain. I had pointed out that the Right to Information Act gives free access to government data nothing in the act says it can then be re-used for anything for example commercial activities or that the information is in the public domain. Users are interpreting that free access to government data is the same as public domain although there is no mention in the Act of any such release. I understand that other images referenced to the RIA Act on wikipedia have been tagged as copyrighted and required a fair use statement. As free images of this subject are available this is not the case with this image. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milborne1 the thing is that RIA allows anything published in government sites to be used, yes you're right not anything but in this case it is allowed as one can use any image released by the government for any purpose that provides a normal inidan with information. You can access RIA on the government and you will see that this this image satisfies the term that material released by the government can be used to inform normal Indian of what this government is doing. Now you might think that this falls under the defence section, but in this case it was released by a Government Department of their success, thus this image can be used. Anyway this is not commercial its a free web based encyclopedia. I have removed the tag if you have any problems you can add the deletion tag again and we can discuss it. another thing I already mentioned the same thing on Milborne1's talk page and the images's talk page. SO as IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED can we romove the deletion tag.And it was published first with no permission because i didn't know whixh option to choose to show that it was in the Public Domain. I thus after uploading the image used the template and pasted it on the permission section the image. Thanks-Enthusiast10 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cant remove the tag until a conclusion has been reached which it clearly hasnt. The Right to Information Act (RIA) is a freedom of information type act which allows Indian citizens access to government information as you say to inform them what the government is doing. It doesnt allow anybody to use the image or data for any purpose, I think it would be of interest if you can you provide an excert from the RIA that shows that images are in the public domain and can be used for any purposes (including commercial use). MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points here:
1. RTI is unclear about the copyright status of released material, although it does state that the information may be freely distributed and copied and asks that govt. organizations put any material released vide RTI on the internet for free access.
2. We can't use the argument that Wikipedia is non-commercial, since wikipedia policy requires that any image whose copyright says only use non-commercially, or only for wikipedia is not allowed.
3. I have emailed the Central Information Commission (CIC) office, about this issue. Hopefully, should recieve a reply soon.
Hope that helps.... till then, I suggest that the image be kept. Secondly, please keep a backup of the image on your computer, along with the syntax, so that a re-upload will be easily possible if proper permission is given. Thanks. Sniperz11@CS 06:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Sniperz11 another thing I already mentioned that wikipedia doesn't classify as using content for comercial purposes as wikipedia is a non profit orgainzation. And NGOs in India can use government material so even using that [piece of information this image should be kept. Or we might as well wait for responce from CICEnthusiast10 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say you are wrong on one point images used on wikipedia must be free enough for any purpose including commercial use please read WP:IUP Licenses which restrict the use of the media to non-profit or educational purposes only (i.e. noncommercial use only), or are given permission to only appear on Wikipedia, are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that Milborne... I guess my point didn't come out clearly - "NON-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY IMAGES CANNOT BE USED ON WIKIPEDIA". Only those that allow for commercial use also (although that gives me a very suspicious feeling about what WIkipedia is looking at using the images for..). Anyway, will get back to all as and when the CIC replies (given Indian bureaucracy, don't hold ur breaths). Sniperz11@CS 05:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found this template with numerous images I guess it ought to work {{Source}} is deprecated. Please use a more specific template. See the documentation for a list of suggested templates. Rationale: The image is downloaded from Aeronautical Development Agency, ministry of defence, Government of India. The Right to Information Act allows all Indian civilians access to works published by the Indian government and can be used under the fair use criteria.this works perfectly. Enthusiast10 (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from bad english that does not make sense the template is deprected perhaps. Really needs to be worded better, perhaps {{Non-free promotional}} might be better. But a fair use statement is a lot better than claiming public domain. Note that if you are claiming fair use then each use of each image needs a rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milborne1, as you said for the time I'm useing a fair use rationale instead of a public domain permission, however I would change it back to public domain if and when CIC does responds to our query. On the point of the template, i found the template on some other images and as I have never edited a template i do not really want to edit it in any wrong manner. On the other hand looking at your expererience in Wiki I would think that you would be more suited to change the language of the tempalte. And pl. feel free to as we are all here to improve Wiki articles. I have changed the permission to fair use rationale so I'm changing removing the deletion tag. Thanks Enthusiast10 (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kept - Not possibly unfree but unfree for sure. Tagged with a non-free license now. Garion96 (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2008_November_24&oldid=257837343"