Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 December 10

< Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
< December 9 December 11 >

December 10

edit

Image:YoungQuorthon.jpg

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 as I9 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader labels source as an unauthorised MySpace page. and indicates they have no knowledge of the images true source. Failing to investigate the origin of the image the uploader tags the image as a poster claiming they don't know what else to call it. 156.34.208.51 (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2007 (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.

Image:RCMS.jpg

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 as I9 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader asserts "Found at: http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/RachelCarsonMS/ Embedded in page; I cannot find the imgae's actual location. Note that the license is the best I could find" and it's tagged as released by copyright holder into public domain. Highly unlikely. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:35, 10 December 2007 (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.

Image:Original-brown-dog-statue.jpg

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: Keep; for now-FASTILY (TALK) 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we think this is PD in the US? William Avery (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken before 1910. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a UK image you require that the copyright holder has been dead for seventy years. Have you any proof of that? Have you proof that it was published in the US prior to 1923? William Avery (talk) 01:e49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The PD page says "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." We are going by that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are being disruptive. Do not edit my user page again. [1] Please have the discussion here rather than starting a forest fire. This image was published before 1923. What more is there to say? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from SV talk page)

To be public domain the image must have been published in the US prior to 1923: "PD-because|the image was taken before 1923" is nonsense. Please proveide evidence that it was published in the US prior to 1923. William Avery (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PD page says "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link. I think you will find that there must have been "publication with local formalities" in the US for it to be PD. William Avery (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I provide a link to a book. William, why are you choosing to do this just as the article is on the front page? Could you wait until tomorrow, please? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't habitually scan all thr images on Wikipedia. Don't worry, I can tell you from past experience it will take weeks to delete this image even if the PD claim is bogus William Avery (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why start the trouble today? In any event, the claim is not bogus. It was first published in a book in 1907 that I'm aware of, but I believe also before that in multiple newspapers, and I know for a fact was published in the Daily Graphic, March 11, 1910. There is no question of this. The issue was an enormous controversy in the UK, which is why we have an article on it, and was also reported in the U.S. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the Daily Graphic was a UK publication. The PD claim you are making requires publication in the US prior to 1923. Please don't say I am being unreaonable because you have chosen to put material with doubtful copyright status on the front page. I am still awaiting a link to the page that says "published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain". Please do: it needs to be corrected. William Avery (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I think this has to be my last post. The Wikipedia:Public domain says (as I wrote above) that publication anywhere in the world before 1923 makes it PD in the U.S. Please go and read the page for yourself. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And before 1909 without what you're referring to as formalities -- and this is known to have been published in 1907. But it was also published in the U.S. multiple times between 1907 and 1910. Really, of all the images to pick on, William, there is no way this is a violation of the PD rules or our policy. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Just provide firm details of such a publication event, not a link to a website and not a claim based on when the picture was taken. William Avery (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the position of SlimVirgin in the dispute above, for what it's worth. Bryce (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we only use images that are PD both in the US and in their country of origin. But in the UK, if the author is unknown, the copyright expires 70 years from publication, so unless this postcard indicates the author in some way, we're probably good. --B (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is now sourced and a year of publication has been given, as required. William Avery (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We routinely keep images that are PD in the US (because they were first published before 1923), even if they are still considered copyrighted in other countries. Commons requires the image be PD in the country of origin, but en.wiki does not. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have that in print anywhere? I'm pretty sure that we respect the copyright of the originating country just like Commons does. I know that from time to time discussions come up about using images from countries that the US has no copyright relations with (like Iran) and Jimbo has stated that we should respect the host country laws even though we don't have to. In any event, it's moot for this image - if the photographer is unknown, it's PD in the UK as it was published over 70 years ago. --B (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Public domain. "Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation, its legal body, are based in Florida, United States. Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States. . . In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." This is routinely followed at WP:IFD, WP:CV, etc. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting ... this is the statement from Jimbo I was referring to. (Paraphrasing) We respect copyright laws of other countries because our goal is to reuse Wikipedia content in those countries. I really don't think it matters here because this image, based on the information we have, is likely PD in the UK, but I agree with this principle in general, except for extremely dumb cases like the UK declaring perpetual copyright on the King James Version of the Bible. --B (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2007 (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.

Image:Redeyefrog.jpg

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 as I3 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source website gives no redistribution rights that I can find. See http://www.petstyle.com/news_ent_article.aspx?id=1442&section=products for the exact source. http://www.petstyle.com/disclaimer.aspx says under item 4 that you can download, but not redistribute their images. B (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2007 (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.

Image:COMEDY-OF-ERRORS-POSTER-3.jpg

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 as I9 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is probably not copyright holder of this official poster – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:15, 10 December 2007 (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.

Image:PUP.JPG

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 as I4 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Description claims fair use contradicting pd-self tag, replaceable Stifle (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to the summary “Matt Smith is the author,” but judging from the username, the uploader is named Jones. --teb728 t c 19:35, 10 December 2007 (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.

User:Jbloun1's many uploads

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: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChrisRuvolo made me aware on my talk page that User:Jbloun1 has uploaded many, many images that he has tagged {{PD-self}}. Many are obvious copyright violations, and those have been listed at WP:CV and deleted. I strongly suspect the rest are all copyright violations. As ChrisRuvolo said, "The exif tags show that many different cameras were used, and the quality of the images vary from mediocre to somewhat professional. This all suggests to me that the images were found on the web somewhere, but I can't prove it." I think all his PD-self images should be deleted as probable copyvios. Here they all are:

I say we should delete them all. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the deletion of all the images. How could this image of New York in 2011 be made by the user? Rettetast (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them are pretty obviously from flickr - either the resolution of the default preview size or the 1024x768 (or so) "large" size. I'm not overly inclined to thumb through eleventy billion flickr images to find them all, but Image:Bloomberg2.jpg is from http://flickr.com/photos/bsuter/347264411/ (and yes, marked "all rights reserved") --B (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're also very different in style and composition; some even have web borders applied and some are obviously thumbnails from somewhere. Rather than allow these to fester longer, I'm deleting the lot. If anyone comes up with a good argument for keeping any of the images, I'll be happy to undelete. Shell babelfish 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I had the same suspicions regarding the images. As well, the user has also been very uncivil and hostile towards others. If he returns and does not change his behavior or if he keeps uploading, he will be blocked. --Aude (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a few have been moved to Commons. I will delete them. --Aude (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone. Glad this could come to a quick conclusion. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:36, 11 December 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2007_December_10&oldid=1074067219"