Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 24

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Photo not found at given source. Kelly ^hi! 03:00, 24 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of non-free artwork (retail box cover art and user interface screenshot). De minimis does not apply as the box and UI are the primary focus of the photo. Psychonaut (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luther Warder.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Bad image source. Although Luther Warder is mentioned several times in Baird's History of Clark County, there are no photos of him in that book that I could locate, and I went through it page by page. Kelly ^hi! 11:32, 24 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fischoff National Chamber Music Association Arts in Education Residency.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear whether the uploader is the copyright holder. The attribution text is different from the author. Kelly ^hi! 12:58, 24 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nikolay Fedorov 1988.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I'm guessing from the username that the uploader is a relative of the photo subject but I think we need some OTRS evidence of this. Kelly ^hi! 16:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about the depicted painting? It's possible that the photo and the painting have the same copyright holder and/or are both CC-licensed, but I think we also need OTRS evidence of that. Also, did the uploader even take this photo? (Even if they did, do they have the authority to release the painting)? Hop on Bananas (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• User talk page indicates history of copyright problems. Kelly ^hi! 17:10, 24 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Noaa-18 APT Enhanced.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• License from given source seems to be noncommercial. Kelly ^hi! 17:11, 24 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norfolk and Western Railway herald-1.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Linked license terms say "lease feel free to use any of the clip art here for personal use, on Web sites or modify them to suit your needs...". Unfortunately no mention made of commercial use. Kelly ^hi! 17:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It could be interpreted to mean that you can use the image for any purpose (including commercial use) on websites, but offline use seems to be limited to personal use. This makes it illegal to sell postcards with this picture. Although the licence permits you to modify the picture, it is unclear what you may do with the modifications. For example, is it permitted to distribute the modifications, or can you only keep the modifications for yourself?

I'm not sure if this meets the threshold of originality, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's borderline - I think it's a bit creative. Kelly ^hi! 00:12, 25 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 as F11 by JGHowes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kingair.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source file deleted at Commons.[1] Kelly ^hi! 17:53, 24 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. — ξ^xplicit 02:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Brown.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The book cited as a source was published in 1996. We don't have any authorship/original publication information on the depicted engraving. Kelly ^hi! 19:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've provided additional source info. regarding authorship to verify free license status of this image.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JGHowes, thank you! Kelly ^hi! 20:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JGHowes, as Jarvis was a painter, not an engraver, I assume someone else did that bit. Does the book contain any more information? I've been Googling for an image of Jarvis' original painting of Brown and not having any luck. Kelly ^hi! 20:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that there are two different pictures in the history. I assume that the source only applies to one of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That's correct. The other file is a duplicate of File:Sir Alexander Brown, 1st Baronet.jpg. It's odd that I can't find a copy of a Jarvis painting, I thought all of his stuff was well-catalogued. We do need some information on who did this derivative(?) engraving and when, as that would probably have generated a new copyright. I was hoping we could just replace this with a copy of the claimed painting by John Wesley Jarvis but I can't find it. Kelly ^hi! 21:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cited book just says "engraving" but not by whom. Line engraving was the early 19^th century printing method for reproducing paintings in newspapers and periodicals. Such a derivative reproduction of a PD work would also be PD, would it not?  JGHowes  ^talk 22:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we still need the information per WP:IUP. Right now we don't know who, when, or how it was done. Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:IUP does say, "In the U.S., reproductions of two-dimensional public domain artwork do not generate a new copyright; see Bridgeman v. Corel". This almost 200 year old portrait could also be tagged {{PD-Art}}, which expressly states: "The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection)". As such, the identity of the person creating a derivative reproduction of artwork in the Public Domain is immaterial. JGHowes  ^talk 01:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have any information on when either the original work or the engraving were published. Kelly ^hi! 18:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source says 1827 for the original portrait of Alexander Brown, who died in 1834: its Public Domain status shouldn't be an issue. Please remove the di tag or take it to FFD as a controversial Non-Speedy.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found an earlier book where this portrait was published in 1909:  John Crosby Brown, "A Hundred Years of Merchant Banking"‎, see ‎https://books.google.com/books?id=HugpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false . I've added this source info to the file page, so this is free for Commons.  JGHowes  ^talk 16:11, 27 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:BikePedIRCounterGreenway.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid public domain reason. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• File was modified to remove branded content. As far as I know, no copyright was listed. If the changes to the gif are unacceptable then the image needs to be removed from the page completely.Androidethic (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Port Charlotte High School.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Port Charlotte High School (Florida).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Port Charlotte High School edit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• License contains conditions that may not be compatible with Wikipedia requirements ("This image may not be used for any purpose that is destructive, illegal, or malicious in any way.") This means that, for example, if any legal jurisdiction at all said that a photo of a school was illegal, we (and any re-users of our content) would be in violation of the license. This also applies to derivative works File:Port Charlotte High School (Florida).jpg and File:Port Charlotte High School edit.jpg. It's a bad idea to add caveats to standard licenses. Kelly ^hi! 23:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The JSON Licence consists of a free licence but with an extra restriction: 'The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.' For this reason, the JSON Licence is often regarded as unfree, see Douglas Crockford#"Good, not Evil". The wording you have quoted sounds very similar to the statement in the JSON Licence, so I'd assume that these pictures aren't freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think I found the simple solution to this: remove the questionable text as creator of the image. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 15:43, 25 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:North Sea interreg.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify copyright status from given information. Kelly ^hi! 23:16, 24 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Barnes (CVE-7).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify copyright status from given information. Kelly ^hi! 23:18, 24 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Omniplex Science Museum - Red Earth Museum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Inclusion of copyrighted works may be beyond de minimis. Kelly ^hi! 23:35, 24 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 as F8 by JGHowes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oak Grove in 1872.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify copyright status from given information. No information on authorship of photo or date and place of first publication. Kelly ^hi! 23:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The source and identity of the photographer in 1872 are provided. As such, it is Public Domain in the United States and properly shown as PD-100.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How do we verify that? The key in the US is not when the photo was taken, but when it was published. There's no info on that at all. Kelly ^hi! 00:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The link in the source field does not work for me. Therefore, I can't check if this is from 1872 or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For me either. Kelly ^hi! 00:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The provided link to the Baltimore County Public Library Archives, where I found this file and uploaded it in 2009, has since gone dead.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. In the future, I'd recommend uploading free images to Commons and requesting a license review. So far as I know, Wikipedia has no equivalent process. Kelly ^hi! 01:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20120219173643/http://external.bcpl.lib.md.us/hcdo/cfdocs/photopage.cfm?id=19455 works. Since it is from 1872, I'd assume that the copyright has expired, either as {{PD-1923}} if it was published in the 19th century, or as {{PD-US-unpublished}} if it remained unpublished until 2003.

There's a risk that it is unfree if first published between 1923 and 2002. We have that problem with lots of files. We recently had a discussion about this problem on Commons, see c:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/10#Template:PD-old-100 and US copyrights. Everyone in the discussion assumed that Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) is in the public domain in the United States, but no one could prove this. I guess we should just accept pictures which are older than some certain age as being in the public domain in the United States unless we have evidence of the contrary. It's possible that there are some false positives but we would have to delete lots of pictures – such as Mona Lisa – unless we do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does cause problems with our content re-users (for instance, when someone publishes a book with content from Wikipedia). Kelly ^hi! 02:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do we delete the pictures of Mona Lisa because of lack of evidence that the painting is in the public domain in the United States? If not, then what is your solution? --Stefan2 (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not! I do think the archive source you found is fine, I'll move this image out to Commons. Kelly ^hi! 10:23, 25 November 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.