Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 10[edit]
File:John power.jpg[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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:John power.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Webpage-quality image, doubtful that the uploader was the original creator. (no metadata etc) --Addihockey10 e-mail 03:28, 10 May 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.
File:San Pedro River.jpg[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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:San Pedro River.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Seems to be from here with a lower-res copy on Wikipedia. --Addihockey10 e-mail 04:05, 10 May 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.
File:1852 $1 US Liberty Head Gold Piece (New Orleans).jpg[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 Legoktm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Stefan2 (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Source and image licensing added. I personally created the digital image by scanning both sides of the coin (which is in my personal collection) and making a composite of the two images. Centpacrr (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you simply add proper source information in the first place? Use Template:Information for your uploads and fill out all the fields. Better yet, PD stuff should go straight to Commons. Also, you recently uploaded several images of coins, all suffering from a lack of source just like this one. In order to save yourself grief and other editors time, I would suggest fixing those as well. Use the Information template... that's what it's for. – JBarta (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Detailed source and copyright information can be found in each file's metadata box located at the bottom of the page. Centpacrr (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Detailed source and copyright information should be found in the image summary where it belongs. – JBarta (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A file licensed as "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License" means that its source and copyright holder is the uploader. Centpacrr (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} tells that someone has licensed the file as CC-BY-SA, unspecified who. Files with that template but without any indication of authorship frequently get deleted for having no source.
- Maybe less important: I see that the file information page currently states that your reproduction is licensed as CC-BY-SA whereas you wrote that the reproduction is in the public domain in the Exif. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are instructions for the proper uploading of files, the use of the Information template and documenting the image source. Dodging the proper way to do stuff around here (for whatever your reasons) is not helpful. And since you almost certainly know better, I would call it disruptive as well. – JBarta (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A file licensed as "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License" means that its source and copyright holder is the uploader. Centpacrr (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Detailed source and copyright information should be found in the image summary where it belongs. – JBarta (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Detailed source and copyright information can be found in each file's metadata box located at the bottom of the page. Centpacrr (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you simply add proper source information in the first place? Use Template:Information for your uploads and fill out all the fields. Better yet, PD stuff should go straight to Commons. Also, you recently uploaded several images of coins, all suffering from a lack of source just like this one. In order to save yourself grief and other editors time, I would suggest fixing those as well. Use the Information template... that's what it's for. – JBarta (talk) 14:05, 10 May 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.
File:Ron Kenoly.jpg[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 as F9 by Wizardman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ron Kenoly.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unclear from file description, but it appears that the uploader has taken a photo of a copyrighted image and added text to the top of it. If that's the case, it obviously doesn't change the fact that the original source image is nonfree. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:37, 10 May 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.
File:Photo of Eric L. Smidt.jpg[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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Photo of Eric L. Smidt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be a professional headshot; unlikely to be uploader's own work. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of the photographer is in the Exif. No idea if that is the uploader. Exif says that the image was taken on 2013-03-15 (and "© 2012), but the uploader wrote that it was taken on 2013-02-12. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Uploader has identified self as "Matt". There's no way that jells with the EXIF. No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder, therefore delete. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have emailed the uploader and asked him to contact [email protected]. The EXIF data gives a name and phone number of the photographer, and googling it quickly finds his website if someone is so inclined to email him. But I would bet $eleventy billion that the uploader works for the subject of the photo and we're far more likely to get a useful permission if the uploader contacts the photographer than if we do it. --B (talk) 13:05, 15 May 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.
File:Eric Smidt Headshot.jpg[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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Eric Smidt Headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be a professional headshot; unlikely uploader created. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: While the uploader doesn't appear to be the subject himself (identifies as "matt"), a review of the uploader's contribs indicates that he's almost surely an employee of or closely associated with the subject. Given the image has clearly been edited for use on a corporate profile somewhere (despite not being visible anywhere online), it seems very unlikely that this user took the photo himself (as the copyright tag asserts) or even if he did, it's probably a work for hire which means he wouldn't own the copyright to it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a different crop of the image discussed in the section immediately above. The copyright status of this image is obviously the same as the copyright status of the image above. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. Given the uploader is someone named "Matt", probably "Matt R.", and the EXIF on the above image has a completely different name, we can't really accept the bald assertion that the uploader is the copyright holder.
- 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.
File:1938WoodenNickelNorthwestTerritory150thCelebration.jpg[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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure we have enough information to call this PD. There is no information on the original creator or whether this is the first publication of the creative components. If the drawing on the obverse, for instance, was published outside the US first, it may still be subject to overseas copyright, and its US copyright may have been restored by the URAA. We just don't know.
Yes, this object was presumably "published" in 1938, and yes, I don't see a copyright notice anywhere in the shot. But I submit these two factors alone are insufficient to grant a presumption that the work is in the public domain. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:10, 10 May 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.
File:MCQ-Typology.jpg[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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:MCQ-Typology.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image is from an WP:AFC article. The image is combined from an HP explanation on the left and Perfecto Mobile on the right. It includes Perfecto's logo on the right, as well as a collage of images of various smart phones. Minimally the logo is copyright, but more likely uploader is not owner of any content -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:19, 10 May 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.