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.
EXIF data credits photo to "Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi"
Eeekster (
talk) 00:32, 30 September 2013 (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 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.
Comment wouldn't the official portrait be work-for-hire, and thus the EXIF statement would be wrong? --
65.92.181.39 (
talk) 06:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)reply
That might be the case. But it would really depend on the contract and we have no way to know and even if it is work-for-hire, that doesn't make it a work of a US Government employee so the copyright exception doesn't hold.
Eeekster (
talk) 02:35, 1 October 2013 (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 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.
Uploader claims to be the copyright holder, though it's clearly a derivative work of
"Skull II" by noted artist
John Sumrow. No evidence of permission/copyright transfer from Sumrow.
Psychonaut (
talk) 09:57, 30 September 2013 (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 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: All imges in this group have been deleted.
Diannaa (
talk) 00:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
No successful OTRS review, see ticket 2013082810015278. The copyright appears to be held by United Press International and a release would be required from the original press photographer or their agent.
Please consider images which also were not successful at OTRS covered by this discussion:
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 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 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 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: Kept as fair use for one article.
Diannaa (
talk) 04:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately not in the public domain in the United States, per
Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. This entered the public domain in India a few years after 1996, so
URAA makes it copyrighted in USA for 95 years from publication.
Stefan2 (
talk) 13:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)reply
But it satisfies the Indian public domain criteria, even the owner (
S. S. Vasan) died in 1969. Then why call it non-free?
---- Kailash29792 (
talk) 13:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)reply
It doesn't seem to satisfy the Indian public domain criteria as the author died less than 60 years ago. In either case, Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, which means that Wikipedia follows the United States copyright rules. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 13:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)reply
To avoid further issues, can we keep the image with a different licensing?
---- Kailash29792 (
talk) 05:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)reply
This is a film poster user in an article about the film. Such posters typically satisfy
WP:NFCI §1. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 12:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Ok, to conclude it, I'll change the licensing. That should solve it all.
---- Kailash29792 (
talk) 07:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at
WP:Non-free content review.
AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 4 October 2013 (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 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.
Obviously from a photoshoot. Dubious copyright. Most edits by the user have more or less been disruptive.
Nymf (
talk) 18:00, 30 September 2013 (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 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: Converted to fair use.
Diannaa (
talk) 00:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
blatant copyright violation, no permission provided
Երևանցիtalk 22:49, 30 September 2013 (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 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.
EXIF data credits photo to "Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi"
Eeekster (
talk) 00:32, 30 September 2013 (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 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.
Comment wouldn't the official portrait be work-for-hire, and thus the EXIF statement would be wrong? --
65.92.181.39 (
talk) 06:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)reply
That might be the case. But it would really depend on the contract and we have no way to know and even if it is work-for-hire, that doesn't make it a work of a US Government employee so the copyright exception doesn't hold.
Eeekster (
talk) 02:35, 1 October 2013 (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 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.
Uploader claims to be the copyright holder, though it's clearly a derivative work of
"Skull II" by noted artist
John Sumrow. No evidence of permission/copyright transfer from Sumrow.
Psychonaut (
talk) 09:57, 30 September 2013 (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 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: All imges in this group have been deleted.
Diannaa (
talk) 00:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
No successful OTRS review, see ticket 2013082810015278. The copyright appears to be held by United Press International and a release would be required from the original press photographer or their agent.
Please consider images which also were not successful at OTRS covered by this discussion:
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 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 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 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: Kept as fair use for one article.
Diannaa (
talk) 04:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately not in the public domain in the United States, per
Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. This entered the public domain in India a few years after 1996, so
URAA makes it copyrighted in USA for 95 years from publication.
Stefan2 (
talk) 13:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)reply
But it satisfies the Indian public domain criteria, even the owner (
S. S. Vasan) died in 1969. Then why call it non-free?
---- Kailash29792 (
talk) 13:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)reply
It doesn't seem to satisfy the Indian public domain criteria as the author died less than 60 years ago. In either case, Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, which means that Wikipedia follows the United States copyright rules. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 13:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)reply
To avoid further issues, can we keep the image with a different licensing?
---- Kailash29792 (
talk) 05:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)reply
This is a film poster user in an article about the film. Such posters typically satisfy
WP:NFCI §1. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 12:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Ok, to conclude it, I'll change the licensing. That should solve it all.
---- Kailash29792 (
talk) 07:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at
WP:Non-free content review.
AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 4 October 2013 (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 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.
Obviously from a photoshoot. Dubious copyright. Most edits by the user have more or less been disruptive.
Nymf (
talk) 18:00, 30 September 2013 (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 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: Converted to fair use.
Diannaa (
talk) 00:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
blatant copyright violation, no permission provided
Երևանցիtalk 22:49, 30 September 2013 (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.