From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < October 19 | October 21 > |
|---|
October 20
File:Orme.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Orme.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- I've perused the utcourts.gov page and for the life of me I can't figure out if this is public domain or not.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I believe that Utah, like most U.S. states, is not public domain. On the main state website, the disclaimer says "The State makes no warranty, however, that the materials contained within these pages are free from copyright claims, or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display," and there is a copyright notice at the bottom of pages. -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- If I can obtain a statement from the author that the image is in the public domain, where can I send it to to allow this to be posted?
SeanPatterson121288 —Preceding
undated comment added
01:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
- You should contact the Volunteer response team; See details at WP:Contact us/Permit. -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 02:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- If I can obtain a statement from the author that the image is in the public domain, where can I send it to to allow this to be posted?
SeanPatterson121288 —Preceding
undated comment added
01:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
- Delete: unless the uploader can get a freely licenced permission from the copyright holder, which may not be the subject of the image, then it should be deleted because Utah is not one of the US states that releases its work into the public domain by default. ww2censor ( talk) 05:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I've sent a request for permission, but haven't heard back yet. I suppose this can be deleted in the meantime. I've received a color photo that I'm told is free to use from the Utah Court Administrators Office, so I'll be uploading that. SeanPatterson121288 —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC). reply
- According to recent communications with a different Utah state organization, it is possible for different branches of the Utah state government to release their information into the public domain, but we would need an explicit disclaimer or communication to that effect. VernoWhitney ( talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Comment OTRS has been received for this image but is not presently usable. VernoWhitney ( talk) 04:52, 27 October 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.
File:AIRVijayawada.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AIRVijayawada.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- I was not sure how to handle this one so I tossed my cyber arms up and sent it here. Summary says it was painted in 1955 by Butchi Babu and that he died in 1968. By most rationale the copyright would be owned by his family, however the uploader claims they have the copyright for all of this painters works as they *are* a member of the painters family, thusly they are releasing it into PD via use of the {{ PD-self}} tag. However the user page makes a slightly different claim: "My grandmother Sivaraju Subbalakshmi lives with me and is a famous writer. We have the copyright of literary works and paintings of the famous telugu writer and painter Butchi Babu." While there is still a claim of copyright ownership, there is not a mention of the uploader being a family member. File:Butchibabu.JPG was upped under the same sort of claim but was deleted for lack of license and/or copyright information. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 02:13, 20 October 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.
File:LeutJoseph mini.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:LeutJoseph mini.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:AJ Infineon.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs)
- Unused images. Really not sure about these: this user seems to have worked on Alli Joseph, which now redirects to Anthony Weiner. On January 28, 2007 this user removed the redirect and it was reverted the next day by User:Jni and than removed again by User:Macallan 12 with the summary comment "redirect someone to their ex-boyfriend?" In looking over the users, User:Macallan 12 was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mrs random. In reading over User talk:Alli Joseph it appears that User:Alli Joseph was an attempt at a mainspace article that was supposed to be placed at Alli Joseph, but, for whatever reasons, it never was and was deleted at the namespace. Most likely these images are orphaned by its deletion in 2007. However there is still the issue of no real source being listed and most likely the uploader did not take these images. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 02:41, 20 October 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.
File:ThomasHardieCommercials.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:ThomasHardieCommercials.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Orphaned company logo uploaded by banned user OutdoorsAndHunting. Uploaded as own work, but it's cleary a company logo, as seen on their own webpage. Delete as an orphaned non-free image. Hairhorn ( talk) 03:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete, orphaned fair-use. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:45, 20 October 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.
File:FTSK at warped.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:FTSK at warped.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- I don't think there is any doubt if this is a "possibly unfree" file because when it was first uploaded it was claimed via fair use and said "Image is © NBC Universal, Inc." (See December 16, 2007 version) For whatever reason the uploader removed the fair use tag, the original source information and claimed it as {{ PD-self}} later that same day (See later version) Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete - copyrighted photo of living persons, is replaceable (unless I'm missing something). -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete- I find the PD status questionable since a Fair use claim came first. Since the image is orphaned, it should be deleted.-- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk| contribs) 20:37, 2 November 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.
File:AKFJpraying.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AKFJpraying.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unused image - most likely orphaned from the five time (Yes, 5) deletion of Akissforjersey. Based on the uploaders other uploads this may not be their own work. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:35, 20 October 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.
File:AKP.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AKP.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Uploader says they scanned the image because they "own" it. They "own" the photo, but who owns the copyright? According to the description of the image it is from 1951. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:44, 20 October 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.
File:AKidd.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AKidd.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be a scan. Taken from a website that appears to be a blog/forum where users post things. Uploader states they are a member of the website, thus they give "permission", but does not state they are the original source of the image. Overall I don't see where any of the material on the website is licensed via {{ cc-by-3.0}}, what i can find are the "rules" that state, in part, Observe all national and international copyright laws when posting (including the online media gallery) and The administrators cannot accept responsibility for the content of any post, or the authenticity of its author. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:57, 20 October 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.
File:AIGOairview1.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AIGOairview1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Another image that should have been speedied as it was uploaded "with permission", but the speedy was declined due to an admins misunderstanding of the policy. It has been standard practice for years that Wikipedia does not allow uploads that are used "with permission" unless there is verifiable proof of who gave that permission. This comes normally comes in the form of a valid permissions OTRS or a valid release on a source website.There is no indication of the original source or who it was that gave this permission to release it into public domain. All we have is a statment that it is being used with permission of some unknown source. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 05:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep- "uploaded by [uploader's username inserted] with permission to release on Wikipedia" + PD-self => self created, uploader giving permission via Wikipedia to release into the public domain. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 06:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply- Keep - the wording isn't as clear as it could be but "with permission to release under the public domain" really can't mean anything other than "it's now in the public domain". Thparkth ( talk) 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Keep - no evidence given that uploader didn't have the right to release it.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete: Actually the PD copyright tag appears to be false because there is no evidence of the claimed permission. One identical resolution image is found at the University of Western Australia (and on their home page) and a second better quality but lower resolution image which appears to be the same aerial photo is found at the Sydney Observatory with a copyright notice in a posting by Nick Lomb in July 2007 (several months before the image was uploaded here) who does not seem to be the uploader.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- I'm thinking we should then mark as keep but tag it with {{ subst:npd}}. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- I don't see any need for that and wonder why you would want to start a new deletion process when it will likely be deleted here on the basis of being non-free yet claimed to be a PD-self.
ww2censor (
talk)
23:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Alright. Delete pending permission. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Comment: Excellent detective work by Ww2censor! At this point it would be a very good guess that the uploader, who has/had a clear interest in the topic based on their edit history (Which I did also look at when I tagged this the first time) found the image and asked if they could use it at Wikipedia - that would explain the "With permission" part. In that case the copyright holder needs to submit an OTRS for the image. Unless this facility is now gone/demolished it could be freely replaced, meaning it would fail criteria 1 of that policy. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 00:32, 21 October 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.
File:CityNightLine Map.gif
- 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: currently tagged as non-free. -- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk| contribs) 20:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:CityNightLine Map.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- a free replacement CAN be made, this does not account for fair use Ysangkok ( talk) 13:43, 20 October 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 ⚡ 20:25, 20 October 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.
File:Conrad Steven Salas Ding Arrest Warrant.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- I don't know if Philippine arrest warrants are public domain or not, but considering it's being used to support BLP-questionable WP:OR, it should be taken down. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:27, 20 October 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.
File:Donya ye Bazi The First Iranian Game Magazine.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: marked non-free. Whether or not the URL is filtered in Iran is not relevant - it is a reliable source that indicates law within Iran. I quote, emphasis mine: Article 2. Works protected by copyright law are as follows... Paintings, pictures, drawings, designs, decorative writings, geographical maps or any decorative and imaginative work produced in any simple or complex manner. Absent further proof from uploader, there is no reason to believe that "items on the internet are not copyrighted." Magog the Ogre ( talk) 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete: this image is copyright even though the uploader claims there is no copyright for Iranian photos on the internet. Neither commons:COM:L#Iran nor this translation of Iranian copyright law supports that claim, so the Creative Commons licence is false. ww2censor ( talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- As the URL: [1] you are predicating to, is filtered out in Iran, it can not be true or accepted by Iran's Law.
- And of course the article indicates the rules inside Iran not outside.
- And the source for this website is also missing: http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/iran/sommaire.html eric_hack ( talk)
There is no "Ministry of Science and Education" in Iran. We have two different ministries:
1.
Ministry_of_Science,_Research_and_Technology_(Iran)
http://www.medu.ir/
2.Ministry of Education.
http://www.msrt.ir/default.aspx
I checked both portals and found nothing about copyright laws or something. Unfortunately there is no english version for you.
The link you mentioned says that it comes from 1970 which means before "Islamic Revolution" . Many things changed after 1978 in Iran.
And I also sent an email to the chief editor to add some copyright policy to the site.
eric_hack (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
16:59, 24 October 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.
File:U1 Yuvan.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:U1 Yuvan.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Thge image is low resolution and has no metadata and the uploader has a history of image copyright problems as well as an insistence on providing an image for Yuvan Shankar Raja (see the now deleted File:Yuvan@fitnessone.jpg, File:Yuvan@fitness1.jpg and commons:File:Yuvan@fitnessone.jpg as well as Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 October 18#File:U1@Filmfare 2.jpg). VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete history of copyright violations and claims that the images had permission, which turned out not to be the case. Hekerui ( talk) 10:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete per above.-- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk| contribs) 20:45, 2 November 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.
File:Hannahgrammy2.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Hannahgrammy2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Souce claimed as Subject website - Skeptical this is CC-BY-SA without explicit link Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:03, 20 October 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.
File:Hannahwithbrandi.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Hannahwithbrandi.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Source is claimed as subject's website - Skeptical it's CC-BY-SA without an explicit link Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:10, 20 October 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.
File:Hannahwithmichele.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Hannahwithmichele.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image source claims to be subjects website - Skeptical of CC-BY-SA claim without explicit link Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:18, 20 October 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.
File:Fullof LRCHS.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Fullof LRCHS.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Delete: uploader added a PD-self licence after a no-licence tag was added to the image but also still claims the image is owned by the Little Rock Central High School and that he has permission to use it. In that case the image may be non-free and there is no evidence of permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor ( talk) 19:33, 20 October 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.
File:Suicide-EP-cover-(jacket-si.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Clearly an album cover. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:58, 20 October 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < October 19 | October 21 > |
|---|
October 20
File:Orme.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Orme.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- I've perused the utcourts.gov page and for the life of me I can't figure out if this is public domain or not.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I believe that Utah, like most U.S. states, is not public domain. On the main state website, the disclaimer says "The State makes no warranty, however, that the materials contained within these pages are free from copyright claims, or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display," and there is a copyright notice at the bottom of pages. -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- If I can obtain a statement from the author that the image is in the public domain, where can I send it to to allow this to be posted?
SeanPatterson121288 —Preceding
undated comment added
01:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
- You should contact the Volunteer response team; See details at WP:Contact us/Permit. -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 02:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- If I can obtain a statement from the author that the image is in the public domain, where can I send it to to allow this to be posted?
SeanPatterson121288 —Preceding
undated comment added
01:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
- Delete: unless the uploader can get a freely licenced permission from the copyright holder, which may not be the subject of the image, then it should be deleted because Utah is not one of the US states that releases its work into the public domain by default. ww2censor ( talk) 05:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I've sent a request for permission, but haven't heard back yet. I suppose this can be deleted in the meantime. I've received a color photo that I'm told is free to use from the Utah Court Administrators Office, so I'll be uploading that. SeanPatterson121288 —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC). reply
- According to recent communications with a different Utah state organization, it is possible for different branches of the Utah state government to release their information into the public domain, but we would need an explicit disclaimer or communication to that effect. VernoWhitney ( talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Comment OTRS has been received for this image but is not presently usable. VernoWhitney ( talk) 04:52, 27 October 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.
File:AIRVijayawada.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AIRVijayawada.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- I was not sure how to handle this one so I tossed my cyber arms up and sent it here. Summary says it was painted in 1955 by Butchi Babu and that he died in 1968. By most rationale the copyright would be owned by his family, however the uploader claims they have the copyright for all of this painters works as they *are* a member of the painters family, thusly they are releasing it into PD via use of the {{ PD-self}} tag. However the user page makes a slightly different claim: "My grandmother Sivaraju Subbalakshmi lives with me and is a famous writer. We have the copyright of literary works and paintings of the famous telugu writer and painter Butchi Babu." While there is still a claim of copyright ownership, there is not a mention of the uploader being a family member. File:Butchibabu.JPG was upped under the same sort of claim but was deleted for lack of license and/or copyright information. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 02:13, 20 October 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.
File:LeutJoseph mini.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:LeutJoseph mini.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:AJ Infineon.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs)
- Unused images. Really not sure about these: this user seems to have worked on Alli Joseph, which now redirects to Anthony Weiner. On January 28, 2007 this user removed the redirect and it was reverted the next day by User:Jni and than removed again by User:Macallan 12 with the summary comment "redirect someone to their ex-boyfriend?" In looking over the users, User:Macallan 12 was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mrs random. In reading over User talk:Alli Joseph it appears that User:Alli Joseph was an attempt at a mainspace article that was supposed to be placed at Alli Joseph, but, for whatever reasons, it never was and was deleted at the namespace. Most likely these images are orphaned by its deletion in 2007. However there is still the issue of no real source being listed and most likely the uploader did not take these images. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 02:41, 20 October 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.
File:ThomasHardieCommercials.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:ThomasHardieCommercials.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Orphaned company logo uploaded by banned user OutdoorsAndHunting. Uploaded as own work, but it's cleary a company logo, as seen on their own webpage. Delete as an orphaned non-free image. Hairhorn ( talk) 03:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete, orphaned fair-use. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:45, 20 October 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.
File:FTSK at warped.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:FTSK at warped.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- I don't think there is any doubt if this is a "possibly unfree" file because when it was first uploaded it was claimed via fair use and said "Image is © NBC Universal, Inc." (See December 16, 2007 version) For whatever reason the uploader removed the fair use tag, the original source information and claimed it as {{ PD-self}} later that same day (See later version) Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete - copyrighted photo of living persons, is replaceable (unless I'm missing something). -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete- I find the PD status questionable since a Fair use claim came first. Since the image is orphaned, it should be deleted.-- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk| contribs) 20:37, 2 November 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.
File:AKFJpraying.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AKFJpraying.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unused image - most likely orphaned from the five time (Yes, 5) deletion of Akissforjersey. Based on the uploaders other uploads this may not be their own work. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:35, 20 October 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.
File:AKP.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AKP.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Uploader says they scanned the image because they "own" it. They "own" the photo, but who owns the copyright? According to the description of the image it is from 1951. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:44, 20 October 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.
File:AKidd.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AKidd.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be a scan. Taken from a website that appears to be a blog/forum where users post things. Uploader states they are a member of the website, thus they give "permission", but does not state they are the original source of the image. Overall I don't see where any of the material on the website is licensed via {{ cc-by-3.0}}, what i can find are the "rules" that state, in part, Observe all national and international copyright laws when posting (including the online media gallery) and The administrators cannot accept responsibility for the content of any post, or the authenticity of its author. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:57, 20 October 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.
File:AIGOairview1.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AIGOairview1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Another image that should have been speedied as it was uploaded "with permission", but the speedy was declined due to an admins misunderstanding of the policy. It has been standard practice for years that Wikipedia does not allow uploads that are used "with permission" unless there is verifiable proof of who gave that permission. This comes normally comes in the form of a valid permissions OTRS or a valid release on a source website.There is no indication of the original source or who it was that gave this permission to release it into public domain. All we have is a statment that it is being used with permission of some unknown source. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 05:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep- "uploaded by [uploader's username inserted] with permission to release on Wikipedia" + PD-self => self created, uploader giving permission via Wikipedia to release into the public domain. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 06:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply- Keep - the wording isn't as clear as it could be but "with permission to release under the public domain" really can't mean anything other than "it's now in the public domain". Thparkth ( talk) 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Keep - no evidence given that uploader didn't have the right to release it.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete: Actually the PD copyright tag appears to be false because there is no evidence of the claimed permission. One identical resolution image is found at the University of Western Australia (and on their home page) and a second better quality but lower resolution image which appears to be the same aerial photo is found at the Sydney Observatory with a copyright notice in a posting by Nick Lomb in July 2007 (several months before the image was uploaded here) who does not seem to be the uploader.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- I'm thinking we should then mark as keep but tag it with {{ subst:npd}}. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- I don't see any need for that and wonder why you would want to start a new deletion process when it will likely be deleted here on the basis of being non-free yet claimed to be a PD-self.
ww2censor (
talk)
23:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Alright. Delete pending permission. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Comment: Excellent detective work by Ww2censor! At this point it would be a very good guess that the uploader, who has/had a clear interest in the topic based on their edit history (Which I did also look at when I tagged this the first time) found the image and asked if they could use it at Wikipedia - that would explain the "With permission" part. In that case the copyright holder needs to submit an OTRS for the image. Unless this facility is now gone/demolished it could be freely replaced, meaning it would fail criteria 1 of that policy. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 00:32, 21 October 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.
File:CityNightLine Map.gif
- 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: currently tagged as non-free. -- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk| contribs) 20:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:CityNightLine Map.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- a free replacement CAN be made, this does not account for fair use Ysangkok ( talk) 13:43, 20 October 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 ⚡ 20:25, 20 October 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.
File:Conrad Steven Salas Ding Arrest Warrant.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- I don't know if Philippine arrest warrants are public domain or not, but considering it's being used to support BLP-questionable WP:OR, it should be taken down. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:27, 20 October 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.
File:Donya ye Bazi The First Iranian Game Magazine.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: marked non-free. Whether or not the URL is filtered in Iran is not relevant - it is a reliable source that indicates law within Iran. I quote, emphasis mine: Article 2. Works protected by copyright law are as follows... Paintings, pictures, drawings, designs, decorative writings, geographical maps or any decorative and imaginative work produced in any simple or complex manner. Absent further proof from uploader, there is no reason to believe that "items on the internet are not copyrighted." Magog the Ogre ( talk) 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete: this image is copyright even though the uploader claims there is no copyright for Iranian photos on the internet. Neither commons:COM:L#Iran nor this translation of Iranian copyright law supports that claim, so the Creative Commons licence is false. ww2censor ( talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- As the URL: [1] you are predicating to, is filtered out in Iran, it can not be true or accepted by Iran's Law.
- And of course the article indicates the rules inside Iran not outside.
- And the source for this website is also missing: http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/iran/sommaire.html eric_hack ( talk)
There is no "Ministry of Science and Education" in Iran. We have two different ministries:
1.
Ministry_of_Science,_Research_and_Technology_(Iran)
http://www.medu.ir/
2.Ministry of Education.
http://www.msrt.ir/default.aspx
I checked both portals and found nothing about copyright laws or something. Unfortunately there is no english version for you.
The link you mentioned says that it comes from 1970 which means before "Islamic Revolution" . Many things changed after 1978 in Iran.
And I also sent an email to the chief editor to add some copyright policy to the site.
eric_hack (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
16:59, 24 October 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.
File:U1 Yuvan.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:U1 Yuvan.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Thge image is low resolution and has no metadata and the uploader has a history of image copyright problems as well as an insistence on providing an image for Yuvan Shankar Raja (see the now deleted File:Yuvan@fitnessone.jpg, File:Yuvan@fitness1.jpg and commons:File:Yuvan@fitnessone.jpg as well as Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 October 18#File:U1@Filmfare 2.jpg). VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete history of copyright violations and claims that the images had permission, which turned out not to be the case. Hekerui ( talk) 10:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete per above.-- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk| contribs) 20:45, 2 November 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.
File:Hannahgrammy2.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Hannahgrammy2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Souce claimed as Subject website - Skeptical this is CC-BY-SA without explicit link Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:03, 20 October 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.
File:Hannahwithbrandi.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Hannahwithbrandi.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Source is claimed as subject's website - Skeptical it's CC-BY-SA without an explicit link Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:10, 20 October 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.
File:Hannahwithmichele.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Hannahwithmichele.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image source claims to be subjects website - Skeptical of CC-BY-SA claim without explicit link Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:18, 20 October 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.
File:Fullof LRCHS.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Fullof LRCHS.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Delete: uploader added a PD-self licence after a no-licence tag was added to the image but also still claims the image is owned by the Little Rock Central High School and that he has permission to use it. In that case the image may be non-free and there is no evidence of permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor ( talk) 19:33, 20 October 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.
File:Suicide-EP-cover-(jacket-si.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Clearly an album cover. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:58, 20 October 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.