Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 April 21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 21
[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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:A4540 small tag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This screenshot of a Wikipedia article also includes the browser, Internet Explorer 7, making it a non-free screenshot. Logan Talk Contributions 04:13, 21 April 2011 (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; no evidence for deletion. After Midnight 0001 02:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ukraine 085.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Copyright status not specified by uploader, PD-self (as used with other photos) presumed —innotata 16:08, 21 April 2011 (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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rwhsmcas2010.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- source is given as Minnesota Department of Education while author is given as USDE, presumably U.S. Department of Education. No specific source is indicated, but given that it's a measure of the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments a state source seems more likely than federal. This image was previously (and originally) tagged {{PD-MNGov}} before that template was deleted following conversations at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 3 and on commons. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2011 (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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Three Nocturnes, No. 1.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Sergei Rachmaninoff died in 1943. His music won't be in public domain until 2013. Someone else playing his music is creating a derivative work, still subject to the original copyright Cambalachero (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- His compositions are public domain in the United States, which is why they were moved from Commons. —innotata 00:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears not: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Three Nocturnes, No. 1.ogg. However, many of his compositions are PD in the US: those published before 1923 and maybe others. —innotata 00:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, it would seem that 1923 does not apply, being a posthumously published work, but if there are other works by this author in the situation described (published before 1923, PD in the US, but not PD under the death 70 years rule of the source country; acceptable here but not in Commons) they must include the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} template. Using {{NoCommons}} alone and without this explanation, made it seem as if keeping a local file here was just a matter of a personal request. And, although not mandatory, it would be a good idea to request the deletion of said images from Commons, rather than expecting someone else to find out such detailed detail sometime in the future. Cambalachero (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The piece was composed in the 1800s and were passed on to other individuals source. It could be argued that they were "published" before 1920 --In actu (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Publication is not the same than sharing among peers in an informal manner, more so, very few works were known exclusively by the artist before being available to the public. Publication means the establishment of a steady system (which may be effective or ineffective, wide open or limited to a certain elite, but must exist) in which the work is distributed and people that is not directly or personally related to the artist may obtain it Cambalachero (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible it was published at a time that would make it PD in the U.S.; I believe the U.S. copyright law of the time would apply. Further, if this was first published only in Russia, and was PD in Russia in 1996, this would be public domain in the U.S. under the U.R.A.A. —innotata 14:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was published in 1948, PD-1923 does not apply. That licence is for works published, not merely created, before 1923. The URAA does not help either, as Russia follows the death 70 years rule, and it wasn't PD in Russia in 1996 (it isn't even now in 2011) Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was giving two different possibilities. Russia changed its copyright law in 2008, restoring copyright for many works, and Rachaminoff's works have at least been said in discussions to have been PD before but not after the changes. If this was PD in the country where it was first published on the URAA date, it is PD in the U.S. even if copyright was retroactively restored. —innotata 15:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of what has been said here is correct, but we still need a publication date. J Milburn (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, probably, but does anybody know if this would definitely have fallen under an exception in Russian copyright law until 2008? —innotata 15:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of what has been said here is correct, but we still need a publication date. J Milburn (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was giving two different possibilities. Russia changed its copyright law in 2008, restoring copyright for many works, and Rachaminoff's works have at least been said in discussions to have been PD before but not after the changes. If this was PD in the country where it was first published on the URAA date, it is PD in the U.S. even if copyright was retroactively restored. —innotata 15:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was published in 1948, PD-1923 does not apply. That licence is for works published, not merely created, before 1923. The URAA does not help either, as Russia follows the death 70 years rule, and it wasn't PD in Russia in 1996 (it isn't even now in 2011) Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible it was published at a time that would make it PD in the U.S.; I believe the U.S. copyright law of the time would apply. Further, if this was first published only in Russia, and was PD in Russia in 1996, this would be public domain in the U.S. under the U.R.A.A. —innotata 14:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Publication is not the same than sharing among peers in an informal manner, more so, very few works were known exclusively by the artist before being available to the public. Publication means the establishment of a steady system (which may be effective or ineffective, wide open or limited to a certain elite, but must exist) in which the work is distributed and people that is not directly or personally related to the artist may obtain it Cambalachero (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The piece was composed in the 1800s and were passed on to other individuals source. It could be argued that they were "published" before 1920 --In actu (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, it would seem that 1923 does not apply, being a posthumously published work, but if there are other works by this author in the situation described (published before 1923, PD in the US, but not PD under the death 70 years rule of the source country; acceptable here but not in Commons) they must include the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} template. Using {{NoCommons}} alone and without this explanation, made it seem as if keeping a local file here was just a matter of a personal request. And, although not mandatory, it would be a good idea to request the deletion of said images from Commons, rather than expecting someone else to find out such detailed detail sometime in the future. Cambalachero (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2011 (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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rachelle Waterman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File page claims that there is no copyright as the Craig City School District is US funded. I suspect that is not true, as it's not a US gov site. Checking all of http://www.ccsd.k12.ak.us/ on the Web Archive in 2004 show "All Rights Reserved" every time. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just being federally funded doesn't make work PD. While there's no copyright notice on the original source page, there's also no indication that it would be PD, and the homepage of the website from the same timeframe also claimed copyright as it does now. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2011 (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.