The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Dr. Lo' Lo'.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image claims to be self-made. Skeptical about this claim as (a) no further details are given and (b) it is on at least this website. Mkativerata ( talk) 01:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: It's so hard to verify supposedly self created media. The website you note is a blog entry from December 8, 2009. This file was uploaded in 2008. Perhaps the blog got the image from us? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:02, 25 January 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 image 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 The Earwig ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply

File:15 jan 10 eclipse srilanka jaffna nallur.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: Copyright claimed by uploader is false. Actual source, that I have added, clearly shows a non-commercial creative commons licence that is incompatible with Wikipedia and there is no evidence of permission to relicence under a free licence. ww2censor ( talk) 05:07, 20 January 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 image 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Google Chrome 3.0 options window.PNG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is this file free or not IngerAlHaosului ( talk) 05:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• The software is free licensed now. The logo is not. The image contains the logo, but it is incidental to the overall screenshot. I'd recommend marking as free. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:05, 25 January 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 image 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 Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Resolved

 – Speedily deleted CSD9. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Christopher Monckton Kilt Mug.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This file is a copy of an image which appears on the cfact.tv website here. However, it is not at all clear that the image is covered by the Creative Commons license at the foot of the page. The same image appears, credited to a Mike Wilkinson (possibly this individidual), on this news website and various other commercial websites. It is clearly not a "work by CFACT" as claimed by the license on the CFACT website and it is used by CFACT without any attribution. There is no indication that the photographer has licensed the image for free use. We can't use the image without a clear and unambiguous release by its creator. This has been discussed at length on the related article's talk page but regrettably the uploader has decided to brush off the copyright issues and upload this image regardless. ChrisO ( talk) 08:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Since the CC-by-SA label seems to appear on every page of the website, there's very little doubt that the license covers anything on the site, in precisely the same way that it does on Wikipedia. I see very little ground for presuming that the image is unfree given the clearly applicable label. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

(1) CFACT is demonstrably not the creator of the image and (2) the creator of the image is not even mentioned by CFACT, so (3) it is far from clear that the creator of the image has actually licensed it for free use by CFACT. It's analogous to a Flickr user uploading a clearly copyrighted image to their user account and then "releasing" it under CC. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think your assumption that the appearance of the image on a commercial site with a different attribution proves owwnership of the image's copyright is correct: we really have no idea where it appeared first, and which of the two claims in correct. Since we have with CFACT, an explicit release of the image, it is reasonable to go with that. (Certainly, at the very least, it provides legal cover for WP's good faith use of the image.)

Also, the analogy to Flickr is flawed: this is not some bored teenager ripping off an image and uploading it as his own. CFACT is a non-profit organization that, apparently, represents Monckton, in the sense that they offer his services as a speaker. With the Flickr upload, it's reasonable that we do due diligence and try to determine the status of the image, since the chance that it's been uloaded without permission is significant, but when an established organization makes a claim regarding an image's copyright, we should be able to rely on that. After all, when we see a copyright notice for an image on a commercial site, we don't start to search out the photographer to verify the image's status -- we merely take the claim at face value, which is precisely what we should do here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually we do know that it appeared long before CFACT started using it. New York magazine used the same image, credited to Mike Wilkinson, in February 2008 [1]. CFACT's page is dated November 29, 2009. When CFACT's license describes it as a "work by CFACT" we know this is not true. That's why I'm so hesitant about using the image - the license makes a demonstrably false statement. -- ChrisO ( talk) 09:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The earlier appearance is a good point, but not definitive -- there are any number of scenarios which could explain it. It should also be noted that CFACT's access to a hi-res version of the image (2336 x 3504, here), points to its legitimacy: they certainly could not have gotten it from the New York appearance, or from the appearance in World Magazine that you pointed out previously. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I did a Google Image search, and the version of the image on CFACT is by far the highest resolution on the web.

As I've said, there are numerous, reasonable scenarios which could explain the situation we find. The photographer, for instance, could have sold the image to CFACT, which then, as the owner, released it under CC-by-SA. I'm not suggesting that the mere extistence of a possible explanation is sufficient to accept the use of the image -- that would be ridiculous; but I am suggesting that the scenario you've put forward is no more or no less believable, and there's no reason to apply primacy to any speculation of this type. Nor do we have to: we have an image appearing on the website of a registered non-profit organization which explicitly released all its content via CC-by-SA 3.0, and it is perfectly reasonable to accept this release at face value. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• This is most probably the original image from the camera. It has very high resolution, and full EXIF and IPTC info assigning the photo to Mike Wilkinson.

A copyright text appears in the IPTC info, in the "caption" field and again in the "special instructions" field:

"Copyright photograph by Mike Wilkinson.
Not to be archived and reproduced without prior permission and payment.
Contact Mike on 07768 393673 or 0131 336 1226
mike.wilkinson@btinternet.com"

The CC license notice in the CFACT website is part of the site-wide footer and it appears automatically in every page. The photo caption doesn't say anything about the image being released.

Mike Wilkinson is a professional photographer that sells his photograpies. He doesn't seem to have a history of releasing his photos under free licenses.

This can't be used as a free image without a OTRS ticket or other some strong confirmation that Mike Wilkinson is really releasing this under a free license. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Yep, the copyright text is pretty clear in the original ( [2]) foundin 4 places in the EXIF data: the description, caption abstract, special instructions and instructions fields. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 16:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete: The rdf description in the file (from the CFACT image) is even clearer and states the copyright to Mike Wilkinson with details including the original image date as Dec 16 2005 similar to the above so should be deleted:

<rdf:Description rdf:about='uuid:73a5991f-72a6-11da-8e32-c697a26bfc64'
 xmlns:photoshop='
http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/'>
 <photoshop:History></photoshop:History>
 <photoshop:Instructions>Copyright photograph by Mike Wilkinson.
Not to be archived and reproduced without prior permission and payment.
Contact Mike on 07768 393673 or 0131 336 1226
mike.wilkinson@btinternet.com</photoshop:Instructions>
 <photoshop:Credit>Mike Wilkinson</photoshop:Credit>
 <photoshop:City>Edinburgh</photoshop:City>
 <photoshop:Country>UK</photoshop:Country>
 <photoshop:DateCreated>2005-12-16</photoshop:DateCreated>
</rdf:Description>

ww2censor ( talk) 17:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete - This evidence appears to be conclusive, so I withdraw my objections to deletion. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I do have one question, more out of curiosity than anything else: if Wilkinson had sold the image to CFACT, is it standard practice to change the files to indicate the transfer of copyright, or would it have all been done externally, via paperwork? I'm just wondering how CFACT got access to such a high-resolution image "straight from the camera". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The most likely explanation is that Monckton himself provided it, since he's likely to have a copy from the photographer. However, the copyright of an image belongs to the creator - the photographer in this case - not the subject, so it's not at all clear that Monckton had any right to redistribute the image (assuming that he did). -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

If you know the email address of the photographer why don't you email the photographer for permission to use the image instead of having this debate? Obviously you don't want to use the image. Polargeo ( talk) 18:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

That's a good idea, why don't you go ahead and do that? In the meantime, as the evidence that the image is copyrighted is now extremely strong, it behooves us to assume that it is copyrighted and delete it. If the photographer were to release it, it can always be re-uploaded. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, I've marked both images for speedy deletion. -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Re to Polargeo: I'd like to use the image, since it's better than the one we have, but it's clearly copyrighted. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:51, 20 January 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 image 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 Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Resolved

 – Speedily deleted CSD9. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Christopher Monckton Kilt Mug crop.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative version of the image listed above. ChrisO ( talk) 08:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Derivative work, so close it in the same way as the file above. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 19:53, 20 January 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 image 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Bushra Gohar Women Resv Seat National Assembly Dist Swabi.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is i free or not? IngerAlHaosului ( talk) 14:48, 20 January 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• tagged as nonfree AND FAL at the same time-- IngerAlHaosului ( talk) 17:55, 23 January 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 image 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Condor-logo.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is it free or not? IngerAlHaosului ( talk) 18:45, 20 January 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• tagged as nonfree AND FAL at the same time-- IngerAlHaosului ( talk) 17:55, 23 January 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 image 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:TAI 129 prototype.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Possibly not the work of the uploader - no meta data and appears to have been copied from http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?34507-Turkish-Armed-Forces-New-posters-read-first-post/page590 (also see source at http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp20/combat-master/Untitled4-1.jpg) Uploader has used different author names for other pd-self uploads MilborneOne ( talk) 21:11, 20 January 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.