Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 26
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < January 25 | January 27 > |
|---|
January 26
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: no consensus. — ξxplicit 02:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sealofchelseama.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- It says that this was "taken from .gov site" so it is not own work as claimed. It might be PD-old or something, though. If it is deemed unfree, it should be removed from the article List of mayors of Chelsea, Massachusetts as it fails WP:NFCC#8 there. Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Taken from a copyrighted government website, so not own work and not free. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My assumption was that government works were not copyrighted. If this assumption doesn't apply to local governments, then delete. Otherwise, it's clearly a government work and should be kept. Jared (t) 13:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Works by the US federal government are in the public domain. However, this seems to be a work of a local government. It might be in the public domain for some other reason, though. For example, it might have been published somewhere without a copyright notice before 1978, and it might have been published with or without a copyright notice before 1923, but I can't tell how old the seal is. If it was designed in 1989 or later, then it is protected by copyright. If it was designed before 1989, then it is much more uncertain. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've contacted the city hall to determine the status of the seal. I'll advise when I get a response. Jared (t) 20:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Got this response from the City Solicitor:
- Works by the US federal government are in the public domain. However, this seems to be a work of a local government. It might be in the public domain for some other reason, though. For example, it might have been published somewhere without a copyright notice before 1978, and it might have been published with or without a copyright notice before 1923, but I can't tell how old the seal is. If it was designed in 1989 or later, then it is protected by copyright. If it was designed before 1989, then it is much more uncertain. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chelsea like most municipalities in the Commonwealth have adopted an ordinance establishing the city seal pursuant to MGL c.40 Sec. 47 and also designated the City Clerk as the custodian of seal. Therefore there is no need to copyright it at this time. I do have an ordinance that dates back to 1994 in our current code however if you read Section 2-1 on the website you will see that the seal is based on history and may have been developed over the years. I think the Historical Society may shed some light on its origin. - Cheryl Anne Watson
- If I'm interpreting what she's saying correctly, the seal is not copyrighted. Therefore, Keep. Jared (t) 21:18, 9 February 2013 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look like something which would be own work and it seems to fail WP:NFCC#8. The photo is much more descriptive. Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This image was cropped from a panoramic image of the carousel taken by me. I think you should be able to tell by the awful centering and crop job! More constructively, this should be added back to the Flying Horses Carousel page, which itself should be augmented. Jared (t) 13:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't make the carousel, though. You can't take photos of signs on a carousel unless the sign is old enough to be in the public domain. It doesn't say how old the sign is. See Commons:Template:Drfop. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2013 (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.