Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 11
[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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Changhua Great Buddha.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- There is no freedom of panorama in Taiwan for statues like this. See Commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Taiwan_.28Republic_of_China.29. This statue is also not in public domain because it was built in 1989. See this Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:56, 11 May 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 discussion was: Keep. In any case, the original image from which it is derived is in the public domain. Cropping and tweaking contrast doesn't seem to create a new copyright claim here. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- linked PD source is already uploaded as another image, but I can't verify the source and license of this derivative work czar · · 02:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is there enough originality to be covered by a separate license? (crop and massage) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is not original enough to be covered by a separate license. However, unless I'm really mistaken, the file is a derivative of File:Ingalls, Laura (4729134272).jpg, which has been verified on the Commons as being in the public domain. ALH (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the only thing which has been verified is that an organisation claims that there are "no known copyright restrictions". --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Iberian woman 100 A.D.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The object is obviously over 100 years old but this picture is clipped from some source (http://realhistoryww.com?) and is possibly a copyvio. NtheP (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 3D object, but equally the photo looks pretty ancient too. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We would need to know where the photo comes from in order to establish whether the copyright to the photo has expired or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the realhistory link http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/True_Negros/The_True_Negro_2a.htm NtheP (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the page doesn't tell where the photo comes from, so we don't know how old it is. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't, but I'm fairly confident that it isn't old enough to meet any version of PD-OLD and may well be a copyvio by realhistory.com NtheP (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the page doesn't tell where the photo comes from, so we don't know how old it is. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the realhistory link http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/True_Negros/The_True_Negro_2a.htm NtheP (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We would need to know where the photo comes from in order to establish whether the copyright to the photo has expired or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 3D object, but equally the photo looks pretty ancient too. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 15 May 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Original crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Copyright violation: Doesn't contain the name of the author or a link to the text of the licence as clearly required by the CC-BY 2.0 licence (cf. File:Josefina with Bokeh.jpg). Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Difference 60 x5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Copyright violation: Doesn't contain the name of the author of the original image or a link to the text of the licence of that image as clearly required by the CC-BY 2.0 licence (cf. File:Josefina with Bokeh.jpg). Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The original uploader is mentioned in the first upload: Fir0002. I see that that image is also disputed, so please contact Fir0002 for info on that. Besides, it was only a temporary file, so please delete it. --Janke | Talk 09:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fir0002 is not the original uploader. The original uploader is carlosluis at Flickr, as shown at File:Josefina with Bokeh.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The original uploader is mentioned in the first upload: Fir0002. I see that that image is also disputed, so please contact Fir0002 for info on that. Besides, it was only a temporary file, so please delete it. --Janke | Talk 09:04, 13 May 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 as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Danielle Ilabaca.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Uploader has removed two missing evidence of permission templates but has provided no proof that the image is not under copyright. In addition, I see no reason to assume that this image would pass WP:NFCCP #1. ALH (talk) 23:59, 11 May 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.