Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 September 19

< September 18	September 20 >

September 19

File:Galland cigars.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galland cigars.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Unlikely to qualify of German Freedom of Panorama - needs to be in a public place and permanent. (It is possible by § 59 (English translation) of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, the Act on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, to take pictures or otherwise reproduce works that are permanently found on public ways, streets or places (e.g. squares, plazas) and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies.) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permanence is usually defined so as to allow for permanent exhibits. The Commons provides the useful guidance that: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." If the exhibit was intended as a permanent exhibit (i.e. not temporary), and is in a public place such as a museum, it would appear to me to quality under the FoP. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hchc2009: this appears to be a permanent exhibit Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete c:COM:FOP#Germany stipulates that the work must be located outdoors, but this object is located indoors and thus ineligible for FOP. Additionally, the photographer must not be located inside or on top of a building when taking the photograph (see de:Hundertwasserentscheidung). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2014 (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:Neumanns bunte Bühne 1.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neumanns bunte Bühne 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Unlikely to satisfy German FoP - and as it's on wheels, it won't be permanent Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permanence is usually defined so as to allow for permanent exhibits. The Commons provides the useful guidance that: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." If the exhibit was intended as a permanent exhibit (i.e. not temporary), and is in a public place such as a museum, it would appear to me to quality under the FoP. Having wheels does not necessarily make an exhibit temporary. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hchc2009: this appears to be a permanent exhibit. The argument that this can't be a permanent exhibit because it's a wheeled vehicle is nonsensical - vast numbers of vehicles are on permanent display in museums world wide. Nick-D (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete c:COM:FOP#Germany stipulates that the work must be located outdoors, but this object is located indoors and thus ineligible for FOP. Additionally, the photographer must not be located inside or on top of a building when taking the photograph (see de:Hundertwasserentscheidung). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2014 (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:Neumanns bunte Bühne 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neumanns bunte Bühne 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Unlikely to satisfy German FoP - and as it's on wheels, it won't be permanent Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permanence is usually defined so as to allow for permanent exhibits. The Commons provides the useful guidance that: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." If the exhibit was intended as a permanent exhibit (i.e. not temporary), and is in a public place such as a museum, it would appear to me to quality under the FoP. Having wheels does not necessarily make an exhibit temporary. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See Article 59 of the German copyright law: "Zulässig ist, Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen befinden, mit Mitteln der Malerei oder Graphik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten und öffentlich wiederzugeben. Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht." The boldface portion is not satisfied. This is a building interior, but c:COM:FOP#Germany only covers bulding exteriors. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2014 (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:Neumann uniform.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neumann uniform.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Unlikely to satisfy German FoP Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the images above were taken with the consent of the museum (http://www.luftfahrtmuseum-hannover.de/). I received a personal tour and asked whether the pictures taken can be posted in Wikipedia, which was positively confirmed. Please advise MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permanence is usually defined so as to allow for permanent exhibits. The Commons provides the useful guidance that: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." If the exhibit was intended as a permanent exhibit (i.e. not temporary), and is in a public place such as a museum, it would appear to me to quality under the FoP. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hchc2009: this appears to be a permanent exhibit Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete c:COM:FOP#Germany stipulates that the work must be located outdoors, but this object is located indoors and thus ineligible for FOP. Additionally, the photographer must not be located inside or on top of a building when taking the photograph (see de:Hundertwasserentscheidung). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2014 (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:Dr. Al Khalafalla.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Al Khalafalla.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Clearly a screenshot from a TV program, not a user-authored image B (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2014 (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:Khalafallaelhurra.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly a screenshot from a TV program, not a user-authored image B (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2014 (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:PaperworkDeluxe.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cover fails NFCC. Deluxe does not differ greatly from standard artwork, and would be described in few words in article, which was not specified in summer or licensing. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:53, 19 September 2014 (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:RAID LP Cut.png

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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:RAID LP Cut.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Album cover. The background image pops up all over Tineye going back to 2008. Uploader claims this as Own Work Crow^Caw 23:36, 19 September 2014 (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.