Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 14
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cydebot (talk | contribs) at 15:13, 12 June 2009 (Robot - Moving category Archived image and media for deletion discussions to Archived files for deletion discussions per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 4.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
April 14
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, if legit logo, uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, no source, appears to be official promotional shot Skier Dude (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, given background appears to be an official photo Skier Dude (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned screenshot, uploader most likely not (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}, but no other information is given. This is a relatively low-resolution image with no metadata; there is no evidence that the uploader is indeed the creator of the image. The caption for this image in Jaani Peuhu identifies it as a "Peuhu Promo Pic", which seems to imply that it comes from a third-party source. —Bkell (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"PAF" is not a source, it's a string of three letters. Need to have the proper source in order to verify the GFDL claim. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably "PAF" refers to the Pakistan Air Force, which is prominently mentioned in the Sarfaraz Ahmed Rafiqui article that uses this image. All the same, I agree that it is vague and insufficient information. —Bkell (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2009 (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 image 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: Not deleted, but listed as nrd. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
recreated a deleted file: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ASpokeo+logo.jpg Used only for a spammy article akaDruid (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:34, 14 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"PMA" is not a sufficient source to check GFDL status. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems likely, based on the Raja Aziz Bhatti article in which this image is used, that "PMA" refers to the Pakistan Military Academy. That being said, I agree that it is vague and insufficient information. —Bkell (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Official file photo" in the filename indicates that it is unlikely that the uploader holds the copyright as claimed in the license tag. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a larger version of http://www.monroegop.com/i/stephen-minarik.jpg . Does one tag with Template:Db-g12 in this case? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's clearly not taken from that particular URL, since the image we have here is of higher resolution. —Bkell (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a larger version of http://www.monroegop.com/i/stephen-minarik.jpg . Does one tag with Template:Db-g12 in this case? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2009 (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 image 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reason Nikiallie (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I uploaded this photo and absolutely, positively am the copyright holder of the image and have permission from both the photographer and the person in the photo, Jasun Martz. I can provide written documentation to the ownership of this photo. It should NOT be deleted from the Jasun Martz Wikipedia page and is avalable in the public domain.[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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the uploader actually has permission from the publisher for it to be GFDL, but even then, it's not be used right now. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File is byte-identical to the larger image of the book on Amazon.com. — Ken g6 (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2009 (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 image 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: as AGF. This is definitely a tough close, but I find IronGargoyle's comment to be more convincing... it doesn't look much like a screenshot to me, either.. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reportedly self-made, but appears to be a software screenshot – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an edited photograph certainly, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "software screen shot". Is there any reason to believe that the uploader is not an amateur astronomer? The uploader doesn't have a history of copyright violations. I would assume good faith here. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2009 (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 image 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: as AGF. This is definitely a tough close, but I find IronGargoyle's comment to be more convincing... it doesn't look much like a screenshot to me, either.. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
same as above – Quadell (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment above. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2009 (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 image 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 and retagged as PD. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an image of a ticket for a parking facility, tagged {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}. If there is any copyright here, presumably it belongs to the ticket company or the parking company. If the ticket itself is not copyrighted, then surely this image cannot be either—it is a faithful reproduction of the ticket, with little to no element of creativity. Either way, the GFDL tag seems inappropriate. —Bkell (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The copyright is held by the parking company. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't think there's any meaningfully copyrightable creative content other than their logo. Their name and telephone number at the top is uncopyrightable telephone directory information. The legal language is the same verbatim language on just about every US parking ticket in existence for years and extremely unlikely to have been created by this company. Legal text is rarely considered creative work or the subject of "copyright" claims. Absent any assertion by a putative "rights holder" that this is a copyvio, I'd just say leave it! Reswobslc (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A copyright exists in an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium. There is no copyright in the legal language of this legal document. If there was a copyright, no other person in the country (or world under the Berne Convention Treaty) would be permitted from drafting a contract with this language in part or in whole. A trademark exists in the logo, but, the image is sufficiently small like the Walt Disney trademark on the Disney article page, and there is no likelihood of confusion of the mark in commerce. Gx872op (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am convinced per the arguments above. Not a creative work. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Per nom. Also,Since when is legal text not considered creative work? It definitely is. Garion96 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: I'm not sure that my listing was a "delete". If it is decided that the ticket itself is under some copyright protection, then this image would have to be unfree, so I suppose it's a "delete" in that case (unless there's a rationale for it). However, if the ticket is not under copyright protection, then we should keep it; in that case, the GFDL tag seems inappropriate—it should be in the public domain. I listed the image here, at Possibly unfree files, because I questioned its free/unfree status. If I had been convinced it should be deleted, I would have listed it at FFD instead. —Bkell (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. It was late and this is not a xfd discussion. Nevertheless, I see no reason why there shouldn't be copyright on this ticket and there is definitely copyright on the legal text. Garion96 (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure that my listing was a "delete". If it is decided that the ticket itself is under some copyright protection, then this image would have to be unfree, so I suppose it's a "delete" in that case (unless there's a rationale for it). However, if the ticket is not under copyright protection, then we should keep it; in that case, the GFDL tag seems inappropriate—it should be in the public domain. I listed the image here, at Possibly unfree files, because I questioned its free/unfree status. If I had been convinced it should be deleted, I would have listed it at FFD instead. —Bkell (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2009 (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.