October 6
File:Joint Force Command Norfolk badge.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Resolved - FASTILY 00:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- File:Joint Force Command Norfolk badge.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BlueD954 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I see no evidence that this is public domain, or a US Government work. It is attributed to NATO. Unless such evidence can be found, I suggest restore non-free license. Wikiacc ( ¶) 02:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Non-free license restored as recommended. Thanks.
Dormskirk (
talk)
08:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. BlueD954 ( talk) 09:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: There a lots of files similar to this which were uploaded to Commons under a {{ PD-USGov}} type of license. That doesn't mean those files are correctly licensed, but it might partially explain why this file's licensing was changed to PD. I think the assumption that works created by NATO employees are the same as works created by US government employees in terms of US copyright law isn't correct, but it is possible that US government employees have been working under NATO command as part of their official duties in some cases. I've asked about this at c:COM:VPC#Copyright status of NATO crests/logos and perhaps that will help to clarify things. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Sijingopinathan1.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- File:Sijingopinathan1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sijingopinathan ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).
Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. Potential copyright violation Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 15:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unless the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT can be verified by WP:OTRS. The fact that this can be seen used online here and here seemingly prior to being uploaded to Wikipedia is a problem since neither of the websites are licensed per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. The file also has no real Exif data to indicate anything other than it was scanned and then uploaded. All of these things combined means that at best this is a case of c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? or at worst c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder, both of which require OTRS verification. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:UCLA astrophysicist Andrea Mia Ghez.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- File:UCLA astrophysicist Andrea Mia Ghez.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Loganmac ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:UCLA astrophysicist Andrea Mia Ghez.jpg. In a nutshell, the image is credited to MacArthur foundation at the source site so it is not PD as a US government work and MacArthur Foundation photos have problematic licensing. Whpq ( talk) 20:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MacArthur Foundation Images of Fellows and Ticket:2016102610013764. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per above. If Commons isn't going to keep this file (or files similarly licensed), then we shouldn't keep a local version of it. US government websites occasionally do host photos provided by third-parties as explained in WP:PD#US government works; so, being found on such a website doesn't automatically make something PD. Moreover, there's no possible way to convert this to non-free content per WP:FREER; so, that's not an option at all. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
October 6
File:Joint Force Command Norfolk badge.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Resolved - FASTILY 00:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- File:Joint Force Command Norfolk badge.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BlueD954 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I see no evidence that this is public domain, or a US Government work. It is attributed to NATO. Unless such evidence can be found, I suggest restore non-free license. Wikiacc ( ¶) 02:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Non-free license restored as recommended. Thanks.
Dormskirk (
talk)
08:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. BlueD954 ( talk) 09:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: There a lots of files similar to this which were uploaded to Commons under a {{ PD-USGov}} type of license. That doesn't mean those files are correctly licensed, but it might partially explain why this file's licensing was changed to PD. I think the assumption that works created by NATO employees are the same as works created by US government employees in terms of US copyright law isn't correct, but it is possible that US government employees have been working under NATO command as part of their official duties in some cases. I've asked about this at c:COM:VPC#Copyright status of NATO crests/logos and perhaps that will help to clarify things. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Sijingopinathan1.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- File:Sijingopinathan1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sijingopinathan ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).
Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. Potential copyright violation Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 15:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unless the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT can be verified by WP:OTRS. The fact that this can be seen used online here and here seemingly prior to being uploaded to Wikipedia is a problem since neither of the websites are licensed per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. The file also has no real Exif data to indicate anything other than it was scanned and then uploaded. All of these things combined means that at best this is a case of c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? or at worst c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder, both of which require OTRS verification. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:UCLA astrophysicist Andrea Mia Ghez.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- File:UCLA astrophysicist Andrea Mia Ghez.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Loganmac ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:UCLA astrophysicist Andrea Mia Ghez.jpg. In a nutshell, the image is credited to MacArthur foundation at the source site so it is not PD as a US government work and MacArthur Foundation photos have problematic licensing. Whpq ( talk) 20:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MacArthur Foundation Images of Fellows and Ticket:2016102610013764. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per above. If Commons isn't going to keep this file (or files similarly licensed), then we shouldn't keep a local version of it. US government websites occasionally do host photos provided by third-parties as explained in WP:PD#US government works; so, being found on such a website doesn't automatically make something PD. Moreover, there's no possible way to convert this to non-free content per WP:FREER; so, that's not an option at all. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.