Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 4

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:BEACON Academy.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Despite claim this is more than simple text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:26, 4 November 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: Keep. January (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:EUTooManyStars.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Whilst the uploader may have uploader the photo, there is no authorship information in respect of the original. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is authorship information really relevant for an image asserted to be ineligible for copyright protection? bd2412 T 14:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we solve this? The crate of oranges it was on is long gone. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or better fix the licence on Commons and delete as F8). There seem to be three authors here:
  1. One person created the sign. The sign seems to be below the threshold of originality, so we don't need to know who this is.
  2. One person damaged the sign. This, too, is below the threshold of originality, so we don't need to know who this is.
  3. User:68.39.174.238 took a photo of the sign, licensed the photo as {{PD-self}} and asked another user to upload it. The act of taking a photo of the sign is ineligible for copyright in some countries but not in all countries. However, as the uploader has licensed it under the {{PD-self}} licence, people wishing to use the image in those countries where it is still copyrighted should be able to do so. Simply carry the licence statement over to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this approach. Having done a little research, I find that per Reglamento (CE) Nº 1148/2001 de la Comisión de 12 de junio de 2001 sobre los controles de conformidad con las normas de comercialización aplicables en el sector de las frutas y hortalizas frescas (Regulation (EC) No 1148/2001 of the Commission of 12 June 2001 on checks for conformity with the marketing standards in the fruit and vegetables), the seller of those oranges was required by law to slap this label on his goods, with no creative discretion as to the text of the label. There is clearly no originality incumbent in so doing. bd2412 T 14:52, 5 November 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tab stop.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not moved to Commons, because of concerns it's from Microsfot software. Are UI elements like this functional ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probably ineligible for copyright, but the image is unused and doesn't look useful for us. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 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: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikimemnoniamap.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Doubts were seemingly raised as to the exact status of this image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this map to be OK because it is used for nonprofit, educational purposes. However, the map is based on the old Viking photos. Better maps are available at this point, but I do not know how to access them. It would be great if someone could take these old maps off the quadrangle maps and add new updated ones. Someone has done this on some of the quadrangles.71.196.236.141 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not able to tell whether the place names and spelling error markings were added by NASA or not. As maps generally are subject to copyright, I think that it is better to delete this. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 5 November 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Music book sources.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Cover jacket designs. Not sure if these count as de minimis for this purpose. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 4 November 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Showroom Dummies Band Picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed as press photo and also as own work, further information required to support own claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:12, 4 November 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caroline Jones Carrick and son Sebastian.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• According to the file information page, this is a work for hire and the uploader is the employee who created it. In some countries, works for hire belong to the employer and in other countries, the copyright belongs to the employee. No idea what the rules are in the source country of this photograph. Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 4 November 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: Keep; source website specifies and provides a link to Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). Diannaa (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Edquist.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is licensed under "the creative commons license". Unfortunately, we don't know which Creative Commons licence this is, so we don't know whether the licence is free or not. Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rcaston.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Overwritten file. The second one needs a source. It has a licence but no source at File:Rodney caston.png. Stefan2 (talk) 16:10, 4 November 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saltgrass Cheesecake.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Whilst I am willing to be convinced otherwise this looks like a professionally shot image. Confirmation needed from uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:58, 4 November 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:This photo depicts a porterhouse steak at Saltgrass Steak House.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Whilst I am willing to be convinced otherwise, the lighting suggests this image was professionally staged. Confirmation of own work needed from uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have deleted all of this uploader's images (except for a couple of logos), as they're copied from various corporate websites. We need to get OTRS in place before they can be displayed here. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 4 November 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Times masthead.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The graphic crest renders this above TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• How old is this? The one at File:The Times - July 6, 1863.jpg from 1863 looks a bit similar, but it's impossible to tell if it is the same due to the low quality. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Stefan, I work at the company and this logo was redesigned in 2006 from the previous version. See http://i.imgur.com/mE6ohaf.png and http://i.imgur.com/jhm6JCo.png - I understand this may not be enough to keep the SVG on Wikipedia. If this is true could you perhaps give me an idea of what resolution we could upload. We sense a lot of people are taking the logo from Wikipedia for their own personal use and given the resolution of the original image, blown up it isn't the best. Mattie^TK 14:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless this is freely licensed, I think that the file should be deleted. The only use is in the article The Times, but the logo is repeated immediately below in the image of the front cover of the newspaper. See WP:NFCC#3a. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 5 November 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⚡ 10:08, 6 November 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: Delete; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa Pegher (Color).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is not an original photograph; it is a photo of a photo, as can be seen along the bottom edge, where carpet or some other fabric is visible. Thus I question whether or not the uploader's claim that this is their own work is valid. Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree this photo has been altered from the original photo on the artists website, which has a copyright name attached to it "Eric Cantrelle" Thus, I believe it is a copyright violation. MDmusicarts (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold I would say that this isn't a photo of a photo, but a photo of a photo shoot. Considering that one of the other three images uploaded by this user (a single-purpose account that uploaded images and made a few minor edits to the article on Lisa Pegher) has an OTRS permission attached to it, it might be a good idea to reach out to Lisa Pegher to clarify the status of these images. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent an email to the official contact address on the artist's website, asking for clarification. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Speedy Delete - Confirmation from Ms. Pegher just came in that these were not supposed to be uploaded and that the uploader is not the copyright holder. See OTRS ticket. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:39, 4 January 2014 (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: Delete; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa Pegher (BW).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is not an original photograph; it is a photo of a photo, as can be seen along the bottom edge, where carpet or some other fabric is visible. Thus I question whether or not the uploader's claim that this is their own work is valid. Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree this photo has been altered from the original photo on the artists website, which has a copyright name attached to it "Eric Cantrelle" Thus, I believe it is a copyright violation. MDmusicarts (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold I would say that this isn't a photo of a photo, but a photo of a photo shoot. Considering that one of the other three images uploaded by this user (a single-purpose account that uploaded images and made a few minor edits to the article on Lisa Pegher) has an OTRS permission attached to it, it might be a good idea to reach out to Lisa Pegher to clarify the status of these images. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent an email to the official contact address on the artist's website, asking for clarification. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Speedy Delete - Confirmation from Ms. Pegher just came in that these were not supposed to be uploaded and that the uploader is not the copyright holder. See OTRS ticket. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:40, 4 January 2014 (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: Delete. - Image was published in 1969, so renewal not required; Thus front and back of photo (or source of it if not a physical photo) would be required to verify no notice was present. ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mayo Smith (1969).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It doesn't say where the so-called "full image" comes from. For example, if it comes from a book or magazine, then it was enough that the book or magazine contained a copyright notice in the indicia or at certain other places. There is also no evidence that the so-called "full image" is a published copy of the image. Stefan2 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a baseball trading card. See here -- Diannaa (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's currently tagged {{PD-US-not renewed}}, which does not apply to photographs published after 1964 so I think the issue is whether it published without a copyright notice. We only have a scan of the front of the card, is it possible that there could have been a copyright notice on the back? January (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I am inclined to keep this based on the explanation given on the file description page. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2014 (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: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nook GlowLight.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of software. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 4 November 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: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galaxy Gear.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of non-free software. Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, this is a poor picture to begin with. I'd rather have one that actually shows the clock instead of the "Pair me! Please!" screen. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:43, 9 December 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.