Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

January 9

File:CocoWalkOverview.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CocoWalkOverview.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bowmac comparison.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bowmac comparison.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The linked permission statement doesn't state what permission the copyright holder has granted. The link to Flickr only shows one of the images used in this gallery. Stefan2 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:TypicalSeattle.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:TypicalSeattle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Geo web.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geo web.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Wrong source provided. The link to Flickr goes to a page about a completely different photograph. Stefan2 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kyle Busch Mexico.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kyle Busch Mexico.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there an archive or another way to tell what the copyright on the Flickr original was at the time of upload in 2006? I'm smelling a case where the uploader changed their permissions/copyrights at some point post-upload, here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a method to find out what copyright tags the Flickr user has selected in the past. If the Flickr user decides to sue someone on the grounds that all rights are reserved, then a court would typically accept the claim that all rights are reserved unless the other party somehow could prove that the file has been licensed. Also note that the Wikipedia uploader indicated this as being licensed under version 2.5 of a Creative Commons licence, whereas Flickr only allows users to select version 2.0, so it is very unlikely that the current copyright tag ever was correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as uploader. I can't remember the details of what I did 10 years ago in 2006 when I was a newbie! I'm sure that I understood license tags even back then and I wouldn't have uploaded an unfree file. I strongly think that the license was changed since upload but there's no way to prove it. In any case, I think that this is a good case to utility the Commons Precautionary Principle on the English Wikipedia and have it deleted just in case. Royal broil 20:09, 10 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Eastmanangel.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastmanangel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This file has been deleted from Flickr, so the licence can't be verified. Note that the uploader has listed this as being licensed under a licence which can't be selected on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Simpsons Ride Staging Area1.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simpsons Ride Staging Area1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is a derivative work. There is also no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder, and it is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Blairquhan Castle winter.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blairquhan Castle winter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as cc-by-nc on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SW Lincoln & 3rd Ave MAX Station.jpg

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; deleted as F9 by UkPaolo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:SW Lincoln & 3rd Ave MAX Station.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Red mango 2284951723 855e3eb0bc.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red mango 2284951723 855e3eb0bc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. The link on the file information page is wrong. The correct image is flickrphoto:2284951723. Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Todd Kluever.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Todd Kluever.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there an archive or another way to tell what the copyright on the Flickr original was at the time of upload in 2006? I'm smelling a case where the uploader changed their permissions/copyrights at some point post-upload, here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a method to find out what copyright tags the Flickr user has selected in the past. If the Flickr user decides to sue someone on the grounds that all rights are reserved, then a court would typically accept the claim that all rights are reserved unless the other party somehow could prove that the file has been licensed. Also note that the Wikipedia uploader indicated this as being licensed under version 2.5 of a Creative Commons licence, whereas Flickr only allows users to select version 2.0, so it is very unlikely that the current copyright tag ever was correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as uploader. I can't remember the details of what I did 10 years ago in 2006 when I was a newbie! I'm sure that I understood license tags even back then and I wouldn't have uploaded an unfree file. I strongly think that the license was changed since upload but there's no way to prove it. In any case, I think that this is a good case to utility the Commons Precautionary Principle on the English Wikipedia and have it deleted just in case. Royal broil 20:11, 10 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:AliceRooseveltLongworthandLBJ.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:AliceRooseveltLongworthandLBJ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. I also suspect that the Flickr user isn't the copyright holder. He seems to have uploaded lots of historical images from random sources. Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Miller Park Nightscape.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miller Park Nightscape.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as cc-by-nc on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:69th regiment armory.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:69th regiment armory.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as cc-by-nc-sa on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Stephen a scharzman blackstone equity group hedge fund.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephen a scharzman blackstone equity group hedge fund.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This has been deleted on Flickr, so the licence can't be verified. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:London Drugs.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:London Drugs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:First Christian Church, Interior Detail.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:First Christian Church, Interior Detail.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is lited as cc-by-nc-sa on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Grant Desme.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grant Desme.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed under cc-by-nc-sa on Flickr. Although the Wikipedia uploader requested the Flickr uploader to license this under a free licence in the comment section on Flickr, the Flickr user only seems to have granted a Wikipedia-only permission. Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Danny Dawson - colorful and looking up.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danny Dawson - colorful and looking up.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:WinterNightsAltar.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:WinterNightsAltar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This (flickrphoto:2952370171) is listed as cc-by-nc-nd on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:LocalboysBattambangboat.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:LocalboysBattambangboat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The source seems to be flickrphoto:295257224. The file is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Andrew Symonds.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrew Symonds.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This has been deleted on Flickr, so the licence can't be verified. Note that the user who uploaded the file to Wikipedia has indicated that this is licensed under a licence which can't be selected on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wiley Post and Harold Gatty 1931.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiley Post and Harold Gatty 1931.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as cc-by-nc-nd on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Miami from North.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miami from North.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as cc-by-nc-nd on Flickr. The user who uploaded the file to Wikipedia claims to be the copyright holder but provides no evidence of this. Additionally, the user name of the Wikipedia user (Miamiboyzinhere) is very different from the user name of the Flickr user (James Good). Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Roof top solar 2.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roof top solar 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Devendra Shivashankara.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Devendra Shivashankara.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This has been deleted on Flickr, so the licence can't be verified. Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Rochas.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rochas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This has been deleted on Flickr, so the licence can't be verified. See also c:COM:TOYS. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Maserati Coupe - yellow2.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maserati Coupe - yellow2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This has been deleted on Flickr, so the licence can't be verified. Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Cervenak.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cervenak.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Globe tango.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Globe tango.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:San Diego County Administration building, with the super moon rising above, from Harbor Island, Aug 2014.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Diego County Administration building, with the super moon rising above, from Harbor Island, Aug 2014.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. The user who uploaded the file to Wikipedia claims to be the author and copyright holder, but provides no evidence of this. The user names are very different. Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bee-wolf feeding on Baby's-breath.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bee-wolf feeding on Baby's-breath.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as cc-by-nc-nd on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Brandon ia fryingPan.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brandon ia fryingPan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

See c:COM:FOP#United States. Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Art of videogames-Advances in mechanics.jpg

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. Very straight forward case. De minimis does not apply here. — ξ ^xplicit 01:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Art of videogames-Advances in mechanics.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is a derivative work. The Flickr user didn't create the games depicted. Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The constituent images are not de minimis in this context. Previously broached at File_talk:Art_of_videogames-Advances_in_mechanics.jpg#Copyright czar 23:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For each whole video game, the total amount of copied work consists of 30 pixels-wide reduction of a single blurry screenshot. How is that not de minimis?

This image corresponds to the fifth case in the 'de minimis' guidelines, where "the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity".

In any case the image should not be removed even if eligible for copyright, as it is valuable as fair use at The Art of Video Games; it visually identifies each of the videogame eras described in that article. Diego (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- De minimis means that the pictures appear in the background and that the image is used in a context unrelated to the copyrighted artworks in the background. These artworks do not appear in the background on the image but are the main purpose of the image, and the image is used in a context related to video games, so the copyrighted artworks are clearly relevant to the use of the copyrighted artworks. Therefore, it can't be de minimis. You are making the mistake of thinking that de minimis has something to do with pixel count. De minimis is all about how you use the material. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the case I described in the guidelines. "De minimis" does not mean that the work is in the background; de minimis may apply even if the work "is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject". "The law does not concern itself with trifles"; what matters is that copy of those screenshots is inconsecuential.
Its purpose is not to describe the content of any the games in any significant detail, in fact it barely would serve to identify them. The purpose of this usage is to evoke the abstract concept of art in games, by using the minimum possible amount of real games that conveys such impression. This is no different than the valid cases of the Museu valencià de la Il·lustració or the banners at the Hall of Champions in Indianapolis, which are both used for showing a piece of the exhibition where those copyrighted works were exposed, and are listed as acceptable free works. The image under discussion is a similar display of the The Art of Video Games exhibition. Diego (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - - See the court rulings listed on c:COM:DM. For example, a typical example is this one. This screenshot contains two photographs, [1] and [2], and those photographs were not de minimis because the purpose of the screenshot was to show how the website displays images, and the person who distributed the screenshot was therefore fined for illegally using the two photographs. The text in the article must essentially not refer to the copyrighted artworks in any way, or else it is not de minimis. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Arts and videogames template does not refer to any of the works; it does not mention the image at all, it merely displays it. Also, how can 'de minimis' depend on how the image is used, as you say? That doesn't make sense; if the image is free content because the amount of copyrighted content is negligible, no usage can infringe the copyright. The guideline explain this: "if the copying is de minimis the copier is not in fact breaking the law at all." Diego (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the case I referred to, the person using the screenshot wasn't referring to specifically those images but to images in general. Therefore, this image can't be used in an article which refers to video games in general either. De minimis is an exemption from copyright protection which allows you to use copyrighted material if avoiding to use the copyrighted material was unavoidable and the copyrighted material is irrelevant to the use of the image. As with all exemptions from copyright, you are not breaking the law in cases where the exemption applies, but you are breaking the law when the exemption doesn't apply.

You might also have noticed c:COM:FOP#France, which states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting but it is quite obvious that the video games were intentionally included in this picture as the video games make up the entire purpose of the picture. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If your interpretation were right, we couldn't have at Commons the two images of exhibitions that I linked above, where the banners and the pictures have clearly been included deliberately; yet the images have been regarded as de minimis nevertheless.

The image is not centered in any of the images of video games; its focus is on the whole panel that contains them. The panel itself is not copyrightable, as it's a mere composition of basic shapes, colors and simple texts below the threshold of originality. As the guideline explains, cropping the image to focus on just one of the included copyrighted screenshots would make the derivative work infringing, but showing the composition as a whole does not. Diego (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you fail to understand that de minimis is all about usage: removing the copyrighted material from the image shouldn't be detrimental to the use of the image. For example, in the case of c:File:Museu Valencià de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.jpg, removing the copyrighted material wouldn't be detrimental in an article about the building (ca:Museu Valencià de la Il·lustració i de la Modernitat, there's currently no English article as far as I can see), so the copyrighted material would be de minimis on the page ca:Museu Valencià de la Il·lustració i de la Modernitat. On the other hand, the page c:COM:DM directly discusses the copyrighted material, and removing the copyrighted material would directly render the image useless for the purpose of that page, so the copyrighted material is not de minimis on that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

de minimis is all about usage: removing the copyrighted material from the image shouldn't be detrimental to the use of the image. Since that's exactly the opposite of what the guideline says in the sections I quoted above, I rest may case. Diego (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's precisely what the page on Commons says. See c:COM:DM#An example: So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. The games form 'an essential part of the overall photographic composition' and 'the photograph was taken deliberately to include the' games. Also, It may be relevant how the image is described or classified: it will be difficult to argue de minimis if the photograph is described as illustrating "an advertising poster" and is placed within the category Advertising posters. The filename refers to games, which is equivalent to categorising the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image search shows a list of freely-licensed images of the exhibition. Any of them may be used as a replacement, as are clearly examples of de minimis usage (several of them correspond to the very same panel). However, the current image is more convenient, as it shows a close-up of the panel from a front angle. Diego (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The games in those pictures are not de minimis in an article which discusses a game exhibition (for example, The Art of Video Games), but are probably de minimis in an article which discusses the building (Smithsonian American Art Museum). It all depends on how the image is used. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Mike Holmes.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mike Holmes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as cc-by-nc-sa on Flickr. Note that the licence specified on Wikipedia can't be selected on Flickr in the first place. Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Nathan Young of Anberlin in performance (2007).jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nathan Young of Anberlin in performance (2007).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Corner of princess and the Water Street in Saint John NB New-Brunwick.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corner of princess and the Water Street in Saint John NB New-Brunwick.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This has been deleted on Flickr, so the licence can't be verified. Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Stingray Ctiy, Grand Cayman-2.jpg

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; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stingray Ctiy, Grand Cayman-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as cc-by-nc on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File now listed as public domain on Flickr. Gandalf Grey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf grey (talk • contribs) 2016-01-10T15:12:04‎
- User:Gandalf grey: Flickr currently says that the file is in the public domain worldwide through copyright expiration. This typically means that the photographer has been dead for 80 years and that the picture was published before 1923. However, this picture was taken in 2006, so the photographer can't have been dead for at least 80 years and the picture can't have been published before 1923, so the file is effectively unfree with all rights reserved. A lot of files from Flickr with this copyright tag have had to be deleted because the Flickr uploader has misapplied the copyright tag, see c:Category:Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests/deleted. If possible, try to get the Flickr user to select a free licence on Flickr. Free licences on Flickr are cc-zero, cc-by and cc-by-sa. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File now listed as cc-zero (I believe) on Flickr. Gandalf Grey
- Wonderful! --Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Fuchka.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuchka.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is listed as cc-by-nc on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.