Image appears to have been uploaded in good faith, but the license on Flickr is actually a noncommercial/no derivatives allowed license which is incompatible with Wikipedia. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal attack and I do not appreciate this. The image in question clearly states that it can be copied under the Creative Commons license as long as the photographer is credited. This can be verified in Flickr and I clearly stated that when on the photo's page. WTF? (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image was not modified. It was merely copied. We're not making a "derivative work"; we're only copying and retransmitting, which is ok according to the author's statement on the Flickr website. So this should be a non-issue. I don't see why anyone would want to modify the image anyways, so a "derivative clause" should not matter. WTF? (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is not free in our sense of the word. It's tagged as CC-NC-ND. NC == non-commercial (Wikipedia material is used commercially, specifically so under our licence) and ND == no derivatives (files uploaded here are resized automatically by the software, creating instant derivatives). By that definition, this file is free, but not free enough for Wikipedia to use. ⇦REDVERS⇨16:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, if {{cc-by-2.0}} is not a valid license for wikipedia, then (a) why does the template exist and (b) if it is deprecated, why isn't it marked as such? WTF? (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of making personal attacks. I am not whatsoever and you doing so is not helpful. As I stated above, I believe you uploaded the image in good faith, but you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's "free media" policy. I didn't write the policy. The image is licensed under "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic", which is incompatible with Wikipedia's free licensing policy. If you want to ask the copyright holder to relicense the image to allow derivative works and commercial use, then the image will probably be fine. It doesn't really matter whether or not he picks 2.0 or 3.0, he has to allow the image to be modified and used commercially. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In image description say "U.S. Geological Survey, 1972, limited update 1990"."Red Triangle" shark region denoted by file uploader."but uploader not give any link to verify of main U.S. Geological Survey map where he drawn a Red Triangle.Could you verify it is originally came from the US Geological Survey or not? How can I verify the main image comes from US Geological Survey or not?- Jayanta Nath(Talk|Contrb)11:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to say that go to library and search all map book? It's just ridicules. It is fair to mention all details about base image or use free map from commons.There are lots of map there of USA and California.- Jayanta Nath(Talk|Contrb)11:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that this is a USGS map publication is sufficient; these maps don't really give much publication information other than date, so it's quite hard to give anything more than what this map gives. If you want to get a copy of this map, you should be able to contact the USGS to get a copy. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probable copyright violation. First time contributor probably does not hold the copyright to the professional photo of an Australian actress. Blurpeace07:13, 5 February 2010 (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⚡17:38, 5 February 2010 (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⚡17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
I went ahead and uploaded a new crop excluding all but a very small part of one of the murals (to the left). Someone who thinks the original is OK can always restore. GeoffWho, me?15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep sorry, yet another lazy mass nomination. "unknown location" I'm pretty sure its in cerritos, california. If you can't slow down and check your nominations you shouldn't be doing them. Give me evidence that there is a copyright problem with this statue and this photo actually breaches it.--Crossmr (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you demonstrate who has the copyright on the statue? Is it the city? Are things done by the city automatically public domain? Frankly the statue is probably less than 10% of the picture. The picture is captioned to illustrate the fountain, not the statue.--Crossmr (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
Keep This is in the Chatuchak market in Bangkok, Thailand. Thailand has FOP. Also this is not likely to be a FOP problem even in countries that lack FOP. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree. Anyway the file was transfered to Commons. Should not have been before this DR was closed (sorry). So suggest that Commonsversion is kept at local file is deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all you need to do more research before your nominations. THe filename says Chennai which is a major Indian city. There is FOP in india so even if this were copyrightable it would not be a problem. But even if there were not FOP there is nothing in this scene that is copyrightable - just some luggage belts. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this is a "Welcome to Clarkdale" sign at the entrance to the town, it's a pretty safe assumption the town (presumably the sign owner) would have no objection to its use here. Maybe relicense as Fair Use? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC) (original uploader)[reply]
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 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.
Not clear that the copyright of this image has expired in the USA; as Wikimedia's servers are in the USA, images must be free to use there. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although published anonymously in 1938, and thus in the public domain in the EU, the photograph itself predates 1923 as the locomotive does not bear the mark of the successor company (the London Midland and Scottish Railway {LMS}: in whose magazine it was reproduced) on the sides of the tank nor the LMS number refered to in the caption. The LMSR was formed on 1 January 1923. Additional US tag to be applied. Regards Oxonhutch (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo of a work of art. No FOP in the US. So I think we need a permission from the artist to keep this image. MGA73 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this is simple enough packaging to not pass the threshold of originality (e.g. Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc)..."Skyy argues, in a nutshell, that the commercial photographs of its vodka bottle are not worthy of copyright protection. We disagree. The essence of copyrightability is originality of artistic, creative expression. Given the low threshold for originality under the Copyright Act, as well as the longstanding and consistent body of case law holding that photographs generally satisfy this minimal standard, we conclude that Ets-Hokin's product shots of the Skyy vodka bottle are original works of authorship entitled to copyright protection."
I am not a commercial photograhper, and the photo in question has been released into the Public Domain by myself. <
I don't understand why we can't take a photograph of an item in full public display..like these photos that include logos, names and designs: File:Christian Lacroix Rouge.jpg
If we photograph a field of patented wheat, or a car on the highway with "Chevrolet" visible or a copyrighted 'designer' breed dog on the sidewalk, that is illegal??????
I believe that this is simple enough packaging to not pass the threshold of originality (e.g. Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc)..."Skyy argues, in a nutshell, that the commercial photographs of its vodka bottle are not worthy of copyright protection. We disagree. The essence of copyrightability is originality of artistic, creative expression. Given the low threshold for originality under the Copyright Act, as well as the longstanding and consistent body of case law holding that photographs generally satisfy this minimal standard, we conclude that Ets-Hokin's product shots of the Skyy vodka bottle are original works of authorship entitled to copyright protection."
I am not a commercial photograhper, and the photo in question has been released into the Public Domain by myself.
I don't understand why we can't take a photograph of an item in full public display..like these photos that include logos, names and designs: File:Christian Lacroix Rouge.jpg
If we photograph a field of patented wheat, or a car on the highway with "Chevrolet" visible or a copyrighted 'designer' breed dog on the sidewalk, that is illegal??????
I feel that its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
1. It is being used for informational purposes only;
2. It is the logo of a company for which no equivalent free alternative exists or could be created without infringing on copyright;
3. It does not infringe upon the original copyright holder's ability to profit from the media; and
4. It contributes significantly to the article in which it is used by identifying its subject.
I believe that this is simple enough packaging to not pass the threshold of originality (e.g. Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc)..."Skyy argues, in a nutshell, that the commercial photographs of its vodka bottle are not worthy of copyright protection. We disagree. The essence of copyrightability is originality of artistic, creative expression. Given the low threshold for originality under the Copyright Act, as well as the longstanding and consistent body of case law holding that photographs generally satisfy this minimal standard, we conclude that Ets-Hokin's product shots of the Skyy vodka bottle are original works of authorship entitled to copyright protection."
I am not a commercial photograhper, and the photo in question has been released into the Public Domain by myself.
I don't understand why we can't take a photograph of an item in full public display..like these photos that include logos, names and designs: File:Christian Lacroix Rouge.jpg
If we photograph a field of patented wheat, or a car on the highway with "Chevrolet" visible or a copyrighted 'designer' breed dog on the sidewalk, that is illegal??????
Likely copyvio from a commercial press photo. Currently shown in Google image search cache as having been in use on 24-ore.com, a commercial Albanian news site [4], although the image link now gives a 404 error there. Was uploaded here as "copyrighted, no rights reserved", pointing to an earlier upload on sq-wiki as its only source (sq:Skeda:Panajot pano.jpg). Copyright abuse on sq-wiki is notoriously common; for instance, the same original sq-wiki user also uploaded sq:Skeda:James Stewart.jpg with the same "norightsreserved" claim, all lacking source and authorship attribution. Thus almost certainly a copyvio; should in fact have been speedied under F9. Fut.Perf.☼22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2010+February+5%23File%3ATania+Zaetta+Turqoise+Headshot+%281%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
