Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 September 14
Appearance
September 14
[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: Kept There's no consensus to delete this image. Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- File:Mark Andrew Smith.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- no proof of ownership Redsky89 (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The previous version of this image uploaded by the same person is a different photo of the same person. There is no reason to suppose the uploader did not take both photos. Thincat (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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: Delete. Absent evidence that the image is now PD, we have to assume it is still under copyright. It was certainly taken after 1923, jusdging by the age of the child. Diannaa (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BabeDorothyRuth.w300h373.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The original source which is now unfortunately a dead link provided provenance for photo which was supposedly used to vett this photo when it was moved to Commons. As stated, the source is now a dead link, but the photo is available on Spokeo.com, absent the provenance. It seems as though we, editors here on Wikipedia, are continually seeking to delete photos that we previously accepted as public domain, but now no longer accept because the original source that we did accept is now a dead link. Is there another or better way to preserve these sources so that we don't eventually lose all media on Wikipedia? Sf46 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to keep this, then you need to show that the copyright statements are correct. Without a source confirming that the image was published before 1923 or without renewal, the image can't be kept. The page you linked to contains no information about the provenance of the image and is therefore useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- The photo is also here on a family website where the User:Sf46 might get a free licence or the provenance. Thincat (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The original source which is now unfortunately a dead link provided provenance for photo which was supposedly used to vett this photo when it was moved to Commons. As stated, the source is now a dead link, but the photo is available on Spokeo.com, absent the provenance. It seems as though we, editors here on Wikipedia, are continually seeking to delete photos that we previously accepted as public domain, but now no longer accept because the original source that we did accept is now a dead link. Is there another or better way to preserve these sources so that we don't eventually lose all media on Wikipedia? Sf46 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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.