Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 October 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angusmclellan (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 14 December 2009 (File:Operation-Mar-Lewe-Part-1.ogv: close, delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

October 3









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]


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]