Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 10
[edit]
- 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Forest3 copy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Orphan image. Author states "all rights reserved". No obvious use. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:35, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Zariza.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Orphan image. Author states "all rights reserved". No obvious use Ronhjones (Talk) 00:36, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:VictoriaTaranova.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Orphan image. Author states "all rights reserved". No obvious use Ronhjones (Talk) 00:36, 10 November 2011 (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.
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 December 3. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Centpacrr.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Has a logo (probably unfree) at the bottom, which makes it seem as if the image may have been taken from the web. I have not seen anything online that matches this image, although I am suspicious Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture is of me and was taken at my request by another member or our TV crew using my camera which was then returned to me. I have removed the logo to avoid future confusion. The copyright of the image (which is used on my userpage) is mine and mine alone. Centpacrr (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why was the bug there in the first place? Something doesn't add up here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I put it there for an earlier non-web use. Any other questions, or are we done now? Centpacrr (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why was the bug there in the first place? Something doesn't add up here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture is of me and was taken at my request by another member or our TV crew using my camera which was then returned to me. I have removed the logo to avoid future confusion. The copyright of the image (which is used on my userpage) is mine and mine alone. Centpacrr (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image uploader has had several issues with copyright. This discussion is to allow the uploader to show that the image was indeed published without copyright. As a side note, the colour image would be more encyclopedic. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This ppc (Wyco #317), which I acquired in 1973, was published w/o any copyright (©) notice. (I have uploaded an image of its reverse side on my server here which shows it has no copyright notice anywhere.) As it was published in the US prior to 1978 without a © notice it is thus in the public domain. Centpacrr (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2011 (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; license adjusted.-FASTILY (TALK) 21:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Difficult to believe that a logo would not be copyrighted upon the founding of the company Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Robertson Aircraft Corporation went out of business in 1934 when its assets were absorbed by American Airlines which had acquired the business in 1930. See also a 1928 RAC timetable here and logo here neither of which carry copyright (©) notices. Centpacrr (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think {{PD-US-not renewed}} would be safer, but I'm not quite sure how copyright is applied to logos (when were they considered first published, for example) Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it somewhat curious that the image was list as non-free right up until it was removed from an article per WP:NFCC#8. Centpacrr not only re-added the image, but also then changed the license to make the licensing match what he wanted to do. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the license because I believed that the original license (which I had applied in an abundance of caution) was incorrect based on further research and the one suggested by Crisco is better. Unlike yourself, I will let the community decide which license is most appropriate. (See also my related comment below) Centpacrr (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Robertson Aircraft Corporation went out of business in 1934 when its assets were absorbed by American Airlines which had acquired the business in 1930. See also a 1928 RAC timetable here and logo here neither of which carry copyright (©) notices. Centpacrr (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Militant marching 1971.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- sourced to 'Rise of Militant by Peter Taaffe' - no source to confirm this scan was released as CC Skier Dude (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- sourced to 'Rise of Militant by Peter Taaffe' - no source to confirm this scan was released as CC Skier Dude (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Militant rally 1988.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- sourced to 'Rise of Militant by Peter Taaffe' - no source to confirm this scan was released as CC Skier Dude (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- sourced to 'Rise of Militant by Peter Taaffe' - no source to confirm this scan was released as CC Skier Dude (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2011 (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 F4 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Unibluelogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Company logo not likely CC. Eeekster (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2011 (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; this button was made in 1867... O_o-FASTILY (TALK) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:CPRR Button 1867.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- No evidence that User:Centpacrr is the original photographer of the button. The credit only specifies that the "digital illustration" is the user's own work, but nothing about the photograph. It should be noted that this user has a history of uploading "digital illustrations" that are derivatives of others' work and then falsely claiming them as his own original work (see File:Flying Yankee at Portland Union Sataion.jpg, vs. the original non-free File:MEC Flying Yankee.jpg). This may be a similar case. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just exactly what "evidence" do you want? This button is in my collection, I photographed it, and then created the illustration from that photograph. In the future you can assume when I say I created a "digital image" that includes one or more photographs that means that the photographs are either PD or I took one or more digital photograph(s) myself which I then used to create a "digital image" (in this case by simply adding a red background). Like all your other unsupported claims that I have created a "derivative work" from a non-free file, this one is equally false. As for your "Flying Yankee" claim, there is a long discussion of that started by you here which you failed to link to above and in which you are the only one to make that claim. (While the Otto Perry photograph and my "digital watercolor" are of the same scene, they are materially different in concept, composition, means of creation, perspective, color (vs black & white) and viewpoint as is demonstrated in a "side-by-side" comparison here.)
- You have been relentlessly Wikistalking me and my contributions daily for over two weeks now SchuminWeb during which period you have also falsely accused me of, among other things, "vandalism", "distuptive editing", "plagairism", "ownership", etc. Remember that Admins are here to help build the project and to serve the community and its editors, not be their "masters" as noted by another editor here. All of this seems to be the result of my (and other editors) opposing some of your administrative actions and tactics as being inappropriate, arbitrary, and disruptive and for which, when these actions were taken to the community, you were pretty much slapped down and they were overturned. (For examples see here (File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg), here, here, here and here.))
- The function of Admins is to help build the project, not to "own" it as a personal fiefdom and to use the administrative powers that the community has entrusted you with to treat the "regular" editors as your serfs. Admins are expected to behave more responsibly then other editors, not less. Perhaps it might help you if you were to find another hobby or at least take a Wikibreak. No matter what you decide, however, your relentless hounding of me and others in the guise of purifying WP is egregious behavior on the part of an Admin and the kind of thing that if you piss off enough other members of the community can lead to having your "ticket pulled". Res ipsa loquitor. Centpacrr (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering your history of using the term "original digital illustration" wording to conceal and falsify image sources, that term carries no water. As for your question as for evidence, you answered your own question: "This button is in my collection, I photographed it, and then created the illustration from that photograph." Say that. Because of the unclear sourcing on a lot of your images, you might want to plan for a few more to end up at PUF unless you clean up your sourcing and make it as explicit as possible about what the sources are for your images, and reveal the sources of all of the source material for your images, even if it is a public domain source. I suggest starting here and working your way down. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the five years I have been here you are the only person that has had any difficulty understanding what I mean by "original digital illustration" or "digital image created by". It means that if it includes one or more photographs they are either PD or I took the digital photographs myself which I then used them to create the final "digital image" or "illustration". Now that you have again been told you have no excuse to not know exactly what I mean. That being the case, any more PUF taggings you make to my images based on the origin of the photographs will be specious and constitute hounding. Being an Admin does not mean that you are the "master" of the the project, the WP community, or its volunteer contributors. In your own word: "Understood?" Centpacrr (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, figure two people thinking you were being deceptive in your use of the phrase "digital illustration". I too wondered if you were the copyright holder of the original photograph(s) used in your illustrations. Though, I'm perfectly content to take you at your word when you say you took the photo(s) in question. Hopefully you can do what's necessary to clear up the copyright documentation to everyone's satisfaction. Thrashing about claiming persecution is not exactly the most useful way to deal with the issue. JBarta (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look at them many of which were uploaded years ago when things were different. Centpacrr (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, figure two people thinking you were being deceptive in your use of the phrase "digital illustration". I too wondered if you were the copyright holder of the original photograph(s) used in your illustrations. Though, I'm perfectly content to take you at your word when you say you took the photo(s) in question. Hopefully you can do what's necessary to clear up the copyright documentation to everyone's satisfaction. Thrashing about claiming persecution is not exactly the most useful way to deal with the issue. JBarta (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the five years I have been here you are the only person that has had any difficulty understanding what I mean by "original digital illustration" or "digital image created by". It means that if it includes one or more photographs they are either PD or I took the digital photographs myself which I then used them to create the final "digital image" or "illustration". Now that you have again been told you have no excuse to not know exactly what I mean. That being the case, any more PUF taggings you make to my images based on the origin of the photographs will be specious and constitute hounding. Being an Admin does not mean that you are the "master" of the the project, the WP community, or its volunteer contributors. In your own word: "Understood?" Centpacrr (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nectanebo2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I think this is non-free as a photo of a 3D object (remember, we were advised by the WMF counsel that coins are 3D objects for the purpose of the 2D/3D distinction. We cannot trust that the uploader personally took this photo because he has uploaded a ton of copyright violations. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AnkhCross.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I think this is non-free as a photo of a 3D object (remember, we were advised by the WMF counsel that coins are 3D objects for the purpose of the 2D/3D distinction. We cannot trust that the uploader personally took this photo because he has uploaded a ton of copyright violations. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wahlbergii adult.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The source page says: all rights reserved Amada44 talk to me 20:52, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Former gogo dancer Leah Dizon performs a striptease (2003).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image is a derivative of http://bbs.cn.yimg.com/user_img/200905/14/goodwillwillgood_1242287311925831.jpg - which has been copied from the web site (purehotmodels.com) in the bottom of the picture (naturally cropped off in the WP image). Cannot find an image pre upload date - I suspect it's not on the original web site any more. I did tag as F9, but declined because first web page is newer. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:26, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Forsite.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Much bigger image on web at http://www.holodeckworkshops.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/amy400x372.jpg - image here cannot be upscaled to that size and quality. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:41, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Link from http://www.association-trf-antibes-juan-les-pins.com/articles/region-paca/antibes-juan-les-pins.html shows http://www.association-trf-antibes-juan-les-pins.com/images/stories/Antibes/vue.jpg - this image and the WP image are obviously from the same photo (cloud patterns match) - just cropped differently - but I can't find the whole original. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Squirrel in London UK.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Orphaned, low-res, no OTRS confirmation that uploader is copyright holder. The original image on Flickr is licensed as noncommercial/no derivative works. Kelly hi! 23:10, 10 November 2011 (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.