Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_September_8 below:
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 8
-
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: Relisted here to attract more comments . --ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
File:Haugsetting2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
-
-
-
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.
kept: the comments here are accurate for the USA, which is what matters here, but depending on what jurisdiction you live in you might not want to try this at home. See database right. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
File:ScythianC14AsiaEuropeFig6SketchEn.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
-
-
The "dubious claim" came from the WP admins that I consulted beforehand (Generally in the US, factual content cannot be copyrighted, though the selection, arrangement, or style of presentation might be (e.g. Feist v. Rural). Since your intention is to take part of the data (presumably copyright exempt) and create a new image from it, you probably have nothing to worry about. Dragons flight 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)). That's why I recreated the graphics, which is copyrightable, and used the data contained in the original publication, which is not copyrightable. If you can advise on the changes to improve the GFDL status, I suppose it can be done, and I would appreciate your help. This one picture represents a result of many studies that are incementally vital to the article's subject. Do I need to respond elsewhere also? Barefact (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as noted in the image description, this has "separate presentation artwork", which I take to be a statement of "I made my own way of representing these data". If that's correct (and I have no reason to say that it's not), this is not at all a problematic image. There's no way that factual content is subject to copyright; you can't sue for copyright violation just because I used some numbers that you researched and published. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 18 September 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.
Relisted from August 23. See the subpage discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Florida uploads by User:83d40m. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
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.
Insofar as practice represents policy, policy is to allow covers for identification. WP:NFCI says different, and since I happen to agree with policy we'll cheerfully enforce it here. Deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
File:Majya jalmachi chttar katha.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
-
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.
Now tagged as non-free and reduced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
File:PR Highres logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a Durham University, Student Radio logo not a corporate one. As a member of the Purple Radio Exec. I uploaded this image and as one of the effective copyright holders I fully give permission for this to be used on wikipedia. If clarification is needed you can contact us at production@purpleradio.co.uk lucuzade (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
The logo would be property of the University, which is a corporation. "The Purple Radio Promotion Team" would have to prove the release of permission for use via the WP:OTRS system. Still licensed as CC3.0, which is incorrect. Skier Dude (talk 04:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
-
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree 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: Relisted here to attract more comments . --ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
File:French Quarter Home.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Whatever this is, I don't see how it can be claimed as self if it's a reproduction of the artist concerned's work Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The photograph is the property of the daughter. The original was donated Allworthy's family to the Louisiana State Museum (LSM). I included that in the references. The image uploaded is a photograph that belongs to the daughter of the artist, so I thought it would be public domain. If it is not, can you please direct me to how I can make that change. The painting is at the LSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoliPelu (talk • contribs) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
It depends on the conditions with which the daughter donated it to the museum.
- She will probably know if the museum now owns the copyright, or if they were only given permission to show it and/or it was donated into the public domain.
- Is the daughter the executrix of her father's estate?
- When was this work first made available to the public? This, among other works, quite likely have an expired copyright but we can't be sure without more information. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
-
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree 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⚡ 02:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
File:Welcome to Rottingdean.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a derivative work of the pictured sign, specifically the artwork on the sign. There's no freedom of panorama for two-dimensional artworks in the United Kingdom. Thus, I don't think the uploader can properly release this image into the public domain. Powers T 14:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's a three-dimensional object, not a two dimensional artwork. Therefore it can be released into PD. Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the copyright of the sign I'm concerned about, it's the artwork on the sign, which most definitely is two-dimensional, just like a mural or a painting on a wall. Powers T 12:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
-
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree 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⚡ 02:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
File:Carl freer 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Looks properly licensed as the work of uploader User:Truthmaker1, but a previous version, File:Carl freer.jpg, also uploaded by Truthmaker1 and by now deleted for a lack of licensing, was claimed to be copyrighted by Carl Freer. In addition, an IP editor added the image to the article, also claiming to hold the copyright. I can't tell whether Carl Freer, User:Truthmaker1 and User:71.129.165.118 are one, two or three people and which of them, if anybody, holds the copyright. I've asked Truthmaker1 for comment; he hasn't yet replied. Huon (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
-
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree 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.
Canada isn't the USA and the default position as regards this class of work seems to be that the subject, and not the photographer, owns the copyrights and that a contract would be required to reverse this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
File:Early photgraph of CambridgeBayWeather.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
-
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.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo
| Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4
