Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 December 23
December 23
[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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of gfdl release Garion96 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2007 (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: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the uploader created this image or has any right to release under GFDL or CC Nv8200p talk 00:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon what are you basing your doubt? This image is copyright Helicon Arts Cooperartive, All Rights Reserved, and it was uploaded from Helicon Arts Cooperative's Wikipedia account. If you doubt its veracity, please email our company directly at [email protected] and we will verify that we own this image and that we uploaded it to Wikipedia. Helicon Arts Cooperative (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. Nomination withdrawn -Nv8200p talk 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]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: withdrawn-FASTILY (TALK) 22:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the upoader created this image or has any right to release the image under a GFDL or CC license. Nv8200p talk 00:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. License changed to fair use. -Nv8200p talk 02:24, 4 February 2008 (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; for now-FASTILY (TALK) 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work Garion96 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel it is allowed as legitimate "fair use" for two reasons. First, there is no way to create a free zed card photo without actually showing one, and showing one will necessarily always include the photos it contains. Second, the article discusses the techniques of presentation on such cards (how they are made, what they contain, typical card sizes and layouts, etc), so I thought it fell under Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_images points 4 and 7. I admit, though, that I uploaded this image before I knew how to properly use the fair-use wiki tags and failed to include that rationale; and I am happy to properly update it so, including "critical commentary" noting the different methods. Let me know what you think. --shift6 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is tagged as public domain, not as fair use. (non-free content). It would fail fair use because the image is deemed replaceable since Kimberly Fisher is a living person. Garion96 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, for the zed card article it is not replaceable except with something that is the same. And if the tag is wrong I can change it. --shift6 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is tagged as public domain, not as fair use. (non-free content). It would fail fair use because the image is deemed replaceable since Kimberly Fisher is a living person. Garion96 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept. Image is not tagged as a free image any longer. I tagged image as "no rationale" since their is no fair use rationale supplied for use in the Comp card article. -Nv8200p talk 02:28, 4 February 2008 (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 Luk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source states "All rights reserved". —Remember the dot (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo clearly states e-mail permission was obtained. Copy of the e-mails between me and photographer (e-mail adresses removed against spam and what not):
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: "Mark Interrante" <[email protected]>
- To: "Christiaan Visser" <[email protected]>
- Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 6:41 PM
- Subject: Re: Wolphin photo
- Hi, I am happy for you to use the photo for the wikipedia. Thanks, Mark
- On Nov 3, 2007 7:38 AM, Christiaan Visser <[email protected]> wrote:
- >
- >
- > Hello,
- >
- > if possible, I would like to use your Wolphin photo (Kawili'Kai) on
- > wikipedia. The following photo to be exact:
- > http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinhole/44480268/
- >
- > It is very hard to find any good photos of Wolphins, hence this request. You
- > will obviously receive full credit for your photo.
- >
- > Two articles it would be used in:
- > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin, hybrid dolphins section
- > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolphin, replacing the current fairly poor
- > image
- >
- > Kind regards,
- > Chris
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyNuke (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for speedy deletion under CSD I3, improper license ("for use on Wikipedia only.") Kesac (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is NOT what it says, you are twisting the wording. It is merely stated that if a person wishes to use it outside of wikipedia he it is desireable that the photographer is contacted for further details as my contact with the photographer ONLY discussed usage on wikipedia. This is in line with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, which states: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." - for which the photographer can be contacted. I've made a minor change to the rationale to specify in which articles the photo is used. It meets all ten points as described in the non-free content guideline: No free equivalent (if you can find one tell me), respect for commercial opportunities (irrelevant in this case), minimal usage (two articles only, low res image), previous publication (Flickr.com), content (Wolphin, which is relevant to the articles), wiki media specific policy (meets the first two basic usage requirements, .jpg file as is desired), one article minimum (used in two), significance (Wolphin photos are rare and I suspect for most readers this would be the first good photo they'd ever see of one), restriction on location (as said, only used in Dolphin and Wolphin article), image description page (attributed, tagged and articles used in are mentioned). BabyNuke (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but no. It's easily replaceable. Go out and take a picture of one! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2007 (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 F8 by Closedmouth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No record of GFDL release. See WP:COPYREQ for how to properly obtain a release. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2007 (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: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC) "Uploader believes this to be a United Nations photograph" does not satisfy WP:NFCC#10a (attribution of copyright holder). —Remember the dot (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Attribution can rarely, if ever, be 100% certain on a historical photograph. This still fits all the requirements of Fair Use, as no free image could be found of the subject as she died decades ago - and was not widely photographed. In fact, no photos of her outside the trials are even known to exist. ON further looking, it appears Crown Copyright would be more likely of course, and that expires after 50 years - so the image is PD anyways. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 04:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we at the very least get information about where the picture came from? Did it come from a web site? A book? —Remember the dot (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless some more research is done to verify source. There is not enough information to say Crown Copyright would apply especially if they are believed to be United Nations photos. -Nv8200p talk 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we at the very least get information about where the picture came from? Did it come from a web site? A book? —Remember the dot (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both deleted, not least for lack of adequate source information. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:40, 4 February 2008 (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: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image is probably in the public domain, but there is hardly any source information, so I can't tell. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would this be public domain? The original this scan came from is no older than 1954, when Pius X was canonized. Gimmetrow 08:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK then it's not in the public domain. I should have looked more closely. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted. No source. -Nv8200p talk 02:49, 4 February 2008 (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; for now-FASTILY (TALK) 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The description says public domain, but the tag says fair use. If it turns out that this image is not in the public domain, fair use should be fine, but the description really needs to be clarified. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept but the reference to being public domain was removed as there is no evidence that this is true. The image was also tagged as "no rationale" -Nv8200p talk 02:54, 4 February 2008 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP changed to PD-self, but I am unsure if it is faithful. Jusjih (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2007 (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 I4 by Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of PD Garion96 (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This photo is derived from a public webpage and edited by the uploadee" indicates to me that this is likely a copyvio and not actually GFDL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:14, 23 December 2007 (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; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY (TALK) 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable PD-self claim of something presented in Kaleido Star made in early 2000s. Jusjih (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2007 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evicence of the claimed permission found at the source site. Jusjih (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2007 (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; for now-FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image was apparently non-free, and recently an entirely different image was uploaded over it. The new image contains a copyright notice in the image itself, but is marked as CC-BY-SA-3.0. The source web site also bears a copyright notice. Confirmation of permission is needed; instructions on how to do this are at WP:COPYREQ. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have an email from the owner of the site from which I've got an image granting me the permission to use any and all of his images under cc-by-sa-3.0 license. I uploaded plenty of his images to many articles already and I've got his note of appreciation for that as he loves to see his work being used for a noble purpose and contribute to the idea of free content. It would be more constructive on the part of the Remember the dot to ask the uploader, me, instead of going right to the deletion debate and referring to instructions on how to write emails with requests. I know how to write emails and ask for permissions. I've already done that a while ago. This just displays the bad attitude on the nominator's part. --Irpen 09:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously Keep as the permissions to license the image under cc-by-sa-3.0 were granted Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per above. —dima/talk/ 17:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, it is against policy to upload an entirely different image over an existing image. Second, we have no record of the permission. Without that record, we cannot confirm the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, you can delete the unfree image from the history. The replacement allows to avoid looking for the image corpses in articles and replace the image name. Second, who is "we"? If you or anyone need to make sure the user gave me a permission, "instructions on how to do this" are here. --Irpen 19:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, especially in light of Essjay, we need firm confirmation to back up users' statements. The copyright holder needs to send an e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org confirming the permission. Your word alone isn't sufficient. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to remember who is granting who a favor. If you start sending out emails to copyright holders who do us a favor and require them to send an email somewhere you may get them annoyed. I can forward you or anyone a portion of his email to me. I specifically asked him which of the free licenses he prefers after he granted me a general permission and his answer was cc-by-sa, black on white. I am not eager to send out private emails but if you insist, I can excerpt a relevant fragment and forward it to you. --Irpen 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should forward your request for permission, the copyright holder's response, and the name of the image (Vladimir by klodt.jpg) as a single e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, where it will be kept in a secure, confidential database. I have also e-mailed the copyright holder asking him to e-mail that address to provide direct confirmation. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to remember who is granting who a favor. If you start sending out emails to copyright holders who do us a favor and require them to send an email somewhere you may get them annoyed. I can forward you or anyone a portion of his email to me. I specifically asked him which of the free licenses he prefers after he granted me a general permission and his answer was cc-by-sa, black on white. I am not eager to send out private emails but if you insist, I can excerpt a relevant fragment and forward it to you. --Irpen 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- About replacing non-free images: "Image corpses" are not created. The user who uploads the free image hopefully would replace the two instances of the non-free image with the free version. After that is done, the non-free image can be tagged for deletion. In this case, the non-free image was not tagged for deletion at all. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just delete the non-free image from file history and get it over with. --Irpen 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, especially in light of Essjay, we need firm confirmation to back up users' statements. The copyright holder needs to send an e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org confirming the permission. Your word alone isn't sufficient. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, you can delete the unfree image from the history. The replacement allows to avoid looking for the image corpses in articles and replace the image name. Second, who is "we"? If you or anyone need to make sure the user gave me a permission, "instructions on how to do this" are here. --Irpen 19:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, it is against policy to upload an entirely different image over an existing image. Second, we have no record of the permission. Without that record, we cannot confirm the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept Non-free image deleted. OTRS ticket filed. -Nv8200p talk 03:24, 4 February 2008 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no evidenc of PD on source site Garion96 (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of GFDL on source site Garion96 (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2007 (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 I9 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not likely PD image. Garion96 (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2007 (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; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use not explained by uploader. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use has now been explained bingo99 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it was not on a dedicated page or a page with a section on "Dinner Ladies". Snowman (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image kept. Image has fair use rationale for the article Dinnerladies. -Nv8200p talk 03:31, 4 February 2008 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (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; for now-FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screen shot on a page not specifically about the TV program. There is not a dedicated section on the page about the TV program. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think the picture should be kept on the Acorn Antiques article, as it is the only picture we have of Acorn Antiques. It is probably not required on the Victoria Wood page, and if the As Seen On TV article doesn't have a section about Acorn Antiques, it can be removed from there. ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! It shows what the show is like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.97.218 (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is now bingo99(bingo99) 12:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is PUI - we already know that the image is unlicensed, so that isn't an issue. If you dispute whether the image qualifies for fair use, you can nominate it for WP:IFD or some other part of the deletion process. --B (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a dedicated section on Acorn Antiques in the Victoria Wood As Seen On TV page - (bingo99) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could I request that this complaint be removed from the list, now that the criteria has been met. It still appears underneath the image on both pages it appears in. - (bingo99) 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept. Removed from Victoria Wood As Seen On TV article as there is no fair use rationale for that article. Issues with fair use and if the image meets WP:NFCC for Acorn Antiques should be listed on WP:IFD. -Nv8200p talk 03:36, 4 February 2008 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screen shot on a page not specifically about the TV program. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, but methinks the only pix you'll find of her will be screenshots - Borderline Keep...Zir (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted. Replaceable fair use image of a living person. -Nv8200p talk 03:46, 4 February 2008 (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 I9 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does "edited by me" means "created by me" or just photoshopped? Garion96 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source listed for this image is a fan blog that uses images that are copyright infringements. Unlikely that the blog owns the image. 71.167.235.18 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unlikely is not grounds for deletion. The website clearly states that it is free use.--Joebengo (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a Google image search and this came up in the first page of results. The copyright clearly belongs to AP.--98.204.112.111 (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2007 (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: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as fair use, which would not be acceptable because of WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability), but Jpatokal reverted addition of a deletion tag saying "no replacement available and license has been granted". Permission to use on Wikipedia only is not an acceptable license. Please see WP:COPYREQ for information on how to properly obtain a release of copyright. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The image was uploaded by its creator, Chatchawal Phansopa (User:Zoowatch), and it's definitely intended for public release (see [1]). It is thus clear that it's not a copyright violation in any sense to have the image on Wikipedia. I do agree that the licensing should be clarified to GFDL/CC/PD, but unfortunately I've been unable to reach him at his last known e-mail address, zoowatch(at)hotmail.com. Jpatokal (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted. The license on the map forbids use without prior written permission. It was uploaded as fair use. If permission is filed to release under the GFDL or CC or the image is released to the public domain, a copy without the wording forbidding use could be re-uploaded. -Nv8200p talk 03:57, 4 February 2008 (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: Deleted-FASTILY (TALK) 22:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of PD licensing? Jusjih (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of evidence do you need? A screenshot of the original negative? I added the year to the License, hope that helps. Engerim (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted The date the image was taken would be helpful If Touzout SA holds the copyright then there beeds to be a OTRS ticket filed by Touzout SA specifically releasing the image to the public domain. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission -Nv8200p talk 04:07, 4 February 2008 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of GFDL on source Garion96 (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of PD on source site Garion96 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of GFDL on source Garion96 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2007 (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.