Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 July 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 13
[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File isnt the uploaders own work but a simple copy from the first best google hit, http://swamigp.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/baseballs-back-al-east-preview-boston-red-sox/. --Martin H. (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2010 (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⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Neeyo3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader (User:Amandabilliot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) was indefinitely blocked some time ago due to extended sock puppetry. Part of this sock puppetry was to create fake pages using images which were claimed to be taken by the uploader but included no EXIF data and are more likely to have been copied from a non-free source. There is no evidence that this sock puppeteer took these photos or has permission to issue them as public domain. The uploader has never responded to questions on their talk pages about these images even though around 40 images have been questioned. Fæ (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2010 (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⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Alx Dokkis11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader (User:Amandabilliot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) was indefinitely blocked some time ago due to extended sock puppetry. Part of this sock puppetry was to create fake pages using images which were claimed to be taken by the uploader but included no EXIF data and are more likely to have been copied from a non-free source. There is no evidence that this sock puppeteer took these photos or has permission to issue them as public domain. The uploader has never responded to questions on their talk pages about these images even though around 40 images have been questioned. Fæ (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2010 (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⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:OrlaaandoWeeeks.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader (User:Amandabilliot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) was indefinitely blocked some time ago due to extended sock puppetry. Part of this sock puppetry was to create fake pages using images which were claimed to be taken by the uploader but included no EXIF data and are more likely to have been copied from a non-free source. There is no evidence that this sock puppeteer took these photos or has permission to issue them as public domain. The uploader has never responded to questions on their talk pages about these images even though around 40 images have been questioned. Fæ (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2010 (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⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sculpture. No FOP in Philippines and university is built in 1978 so I asume the sculptur is not older. MGA73 (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2010 (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⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:30stm download 2010.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Looks like a screenshot. No metadata. Name is called "download" suggesting it is found on net but TinEye gave no hits. MGA73 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2010 (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 G5 by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot independently verify that this file has been released to public domain as claimed. The file was uploaded by a now-blocked user. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:32, 13 July 2010 (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⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:MD Alam with Dr Younus the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Winner.JPEG.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I cannot independently verify that this image was released into public domain as is claimed. The file was uploaded by a now-blocked vandal. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:32, 13 July 2010 (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 G5 by R'n'B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Otari.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Upload from a problematic user, tagged as self-created but also attributed to someone whose name doesn't match the uploader's. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:46, 13 July 2010 (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⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SamSosa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- User claiming that it is their image, but seems odd that this image comes up in first page of google image results (used in a wordpress blog in 2007) [1] Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2010 (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⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:LoganLrman1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader (User:Amandabilliot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) was indefinitely blocked some time ago due to extended sock puppetry. Part of this sock puppetry was to create fake pages using images which were claimed to be taken by the uploader but included no EXIF data and are more likely to have been copied from a non-free source. There is no evidence that this sock puppeteer took these photos or has permission to issue them as public domain. The uploader has never responded to questions on their talk pages about these images even though around 40 images have been questioned. Fæ (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2010 (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⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:OrlaaandoWeeeks2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader (User:Amandabilliot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) was indefinitely blocked some time ago due to extended sock puppetry. Part of this sock puppetry was to create fake pages using images which were claimed to be taken by the uploader but included no EXIF data and are more likely to have been copied from a non-free source. There is no evidence that this sock puppeteer took these photos or has permission to issue them as public domain. The uploader has never responded to questions on their talk pages about these images even though around 40 images have been questioned. Fæ (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2010 (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: delete, erring on the side of caution. — ξxplicit 03:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AAMParkscreen.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- There is a large area in this image of copyrighted material, which User:MGA73 is concerned about. In my personal opinion, due to the angle, focus, the quality of the image and it being a single frame from a TV broadcast, there is effectively 0 copyrightable value here, but others might disagree. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe this one should be deleted too File:Aflgame.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.243 (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous poster says it all. I added it because this one was in Docklands stadiums article. If it is copyrighted (as you claim it is) I'm not too bothered. But if mine one is and this one isn't please explain why. Sliat 1981 (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With File:Aflgame.jpg the inclusion of the image on the screen can be considered incidental since it includes a much larger area than the jumbotron, which would mean it is not a derivative work, but the rugby image takes up almost the entire AAM picture. Since the picture is an interesting part of the broadcast rather than just a view of the field, it is hard to argue for incidental inclusion of the image even if it was not. See Commons:Derivative works before you respond to this.--Jorfer (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note to the arguments above regarding Derivative works. In short a derivative work is a photo of some "work of art" and when it comes to size of the work de minimis is what guides us (the size of the work compared to the whole photo + what is in focus). I do not think that deminimis would apply to File:AAMParkscreen.JPG or File:Aflgame.jpg because the screen is the main motive. However if you look at File:Docklands_Stadium_movable_seating.jpg de minimis would apply.
- The only possible rescue I can think of (except if deminimis would apply) is if the work is not eligible for copyright. If the transmission was just a simple setup of a camera that just stood there I would say "no it is not eligible for copyright" but if there is a camera man following the players and zooming and adjusting etc. I would say "yes". If you ask TV-channels they would say that TV-reccordings are eligible for copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- License mentions PD after 70 years but description on talk page says that image is older than 50 years (now 55). MGA73 (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2010 (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.