Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 November 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 30
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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. Discussion and review of the law in question indicates that while a subject release may not be required, the photograph is not free of copyright. Shell babelfish 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Carlos Inzillo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploaders asserts that Argentine law states that photos of people at public events are free from copyright. I would dispute that. Granted I only have a machine translation of the law to work with but what it seems to say is not that photos taken at public events are free from copyright, but rater that you are "free to publish" such photos without first obtaining permission to do so from all persons who appear in the photo (whereas a photo taken in a private context do require you to obtain permission from the subjects before publishing their photo). Can any Spanish speaking users verify my interpretation? Sherool (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct. The cited article states that a photo of a person can't be used commercially without authorization (a more details on that), and later states that such authorization isn't needed for, for example, photos taken in public events. The "free" word in it ("libre") does not mean "free of copyright" but "free of the need to have such authorization". That's clear from the context. The scope of what is or isn't protected by copyright is stated at the 1º article, and nothing in it can lead to think that photos taken in public events can't be copyrighted. (Note: Spanish is my original languaje, I can read and understand the text without needing translation; and I'm admin in Commons as well) MBelgrano (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The response from the uploader below have been copied from my talk page --Sherool (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to disagree with your translator, but "es libre la publicación" ("for free publication") is unambiguous, since it's not qualified by any caveats in the phrase at all (save for the aforementioned requirement that it be taken in public). The first sentence in the article does not qualify the second, you see - the second qualifies the first (i.e: personal portraits require permission to be published, though not if taken in public or of public interest).
- Thanks again for your time.
- Yes they don't require permission (from the subject) to be published, however that doesn't mean the photographer suddenly doesn't have a copyright to the photo, just that he is actually allowed to publish it. The fact that a photo is legal to publish doesn't imply that everyone is also free to copy, re-publish, sell etc. said photo. --Sherool (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To all concerned:
- Sherood, you're right, of course, about the distinction you drew between privacy rights and intellectual property rights. I'm supportive of excluding copyrighted or, copyrighteable, photos from Wikipedia. Please remember, though, that the clause does not stipulate that "a photo taken in Argentina of public figures in public is free when and if the photographer decides it's not worth copyrighting." The photographer, by the way, wasn't credited in the municipal website (for the very reason). Even so, had I had his or her name, I would have attached it just the same; it's a quick little snapshot, but simpático, I think.
- Again, Sherood, thanks for taking the time to at least discuss this.
- My regards, Sherlock4000 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "es libre la publicación" complete sentence is "Es libre la publicación del retrato cuando se relacione con fines científicos, didácticos y en general culturales, o con hechos o acontecimientos de interés público o que se hubieran desarrollado en público." In english, "The publication of the portrait is free when it is related with scientific purposes, didactic and cultural in general, or with facts or events of public interest or which took place in public space". As you can see, it's closer to a "fair use" clause than to a "ineligible for copyright" one. Cultural topics can't be ineligible for copyright: that includes music, books, portraits, sculptures; everything that is typically copyrightable. Even more, such asumption would be in direct contradiction with the 1º article. This law is of 1933, if there was such a gross contradiction it would have been corrected very long ago. MBelgrano (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2009 (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 image 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Port Said 13.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- watermarked with a website address - website is copyrighted and it seems that this image may also be Peripitus (Talk) 02:22, 30 November 2009 (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 image 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Port Said 52.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Another image watermarked to a (c) website. No indication I can see that Waleed Montasser and the uploader are the same person Peripitus (Talk) 02:24, 30 November 2009 (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 image 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. Shell babelfish 17:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Newspaper cover - highly unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, that image of PC Bill Barker certainly does not qualify for de minimus and is very likely to be copyrighted. Jolly Ω Janner 20:33, 30 November 2009 (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 image 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: Tagged for deletion as missing fair use rationale. Shell babelfish 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Visalia Main Street.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Originally uploaded with source [ http://thoughtsonliving.weblogger.com/2005/09/04] (dead) - changed to "Extracted from public domain of Thoughts on Living, on the Internet Archive". Internet archive, as far as i can tell, does not have this image. Uploader User:Visaliaguy & changer User:VISALIAso559 blocked for socking. Skier Dude (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:06, 30 November 2009 (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 image 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 now commons File:Bérégovoy.jpg. Shell babelfish 17:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Beregovoy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Sourced to French wikipedia but the actual copyright holder and license are unknown. Mosmof (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2009 (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 image 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vlcsnap-9704655.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Doubtful that a screenshot of a film qualifies as PD-self. Mosmof (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2009 (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 image 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wd g2 b.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unlikely that the uploader owns the copyright to a film poster. Mosmof (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2009 (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 image 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. hr:Josip Horvat Međimurec indicates that he did not start painting until 1924. Shell babelfish 17:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kralj Tomislav.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Early 20th-century painting, probably not PD-old, painter died in 1945 according to hr:Josip Horvat Međimurec Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 30 November 2009 (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 image 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: File does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Barcelona skyline.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Violating the terms and conditions of the CC license given by Albert78000 on Flickr by not giving the right attribution to the image http://www.flickr.com/photos/albert92/2625523144/88.160.139.234 (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for notifying us of this problem. However, this image is hosted not here but on Commons. I'll take the necessary steps there. Unfortunately, the Flickr image is licensed "non-commercial only", so we can't fix this by just correcting the attribution; the image will have to be deleted. (If I may ask, you aren't the copyright holder yourself, by any chance, are you?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 30 November 2009 (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 image 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. Shell babelfish 17:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TauntonBusRoutes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This looks like a standard bus route map across the United Kingdom typically produced by bus operaters or governments and would not fall under creative commons. The file does not state the author or source. One could pressume the uploader is the author, but the user has a string of previous file deletions. Looks like the uploader scanned the bus map and claimed authorship. Jolly Ω Janner 20:38, 30 November 2009 (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.