Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 June 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 27
[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{PD-Pre1978}} requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 01:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Dominic·t 01:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, this picture was published to the Chapters and alumni. --ShadowRAM (talk) 03:43, 29 June 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1961OFHSEC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- {{PD-Pre1978}} requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 01:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yearbooks would be publishing; I find it very hard to believe this was not published. Evidence for the lack of copyright notice is harder though. But, this would have had to be renewed with the copyright office at some point, being that it was almost certainly published before 1964. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:39, 4 July 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:68 Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- {{PD-Pre1978}} requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 01:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not sure why you think that would never have been published -- hard to fathom how it wouldn't be; the simple act of getting it printed on company letterheads would involve publication. It's {{PD-textlogo}} anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:10, 4 July 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; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:34 Cards.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- {{PD-Pre1978}} requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 01:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. The printing of this form was covered by the same US copyright law as printing a book or magazine. The only aspect of this one which might not fit is the typed in information on the form, but I suspect that would be de minimus and/or uncopyrightable. Infrogmation (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not the same as a book or magazine, because "publication" implies more than simply printing a work, at least when used in the technical sense. Please refer to the definition at Publication#Legal definition and copyright. (I am no expert, but that is what my understanding is based on.) The copy of this contract here appears to have been made for the contract parties, rather than as a publication copy. Dominic·t 03:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This may well qualify as "limited publication" (only "general publication" triggered the copyright notice requirements) but there is some doubt in that if there were no explicit instructions to not distribute it. Do note that the technical definition of "publication" you linked to is from the 1976 U.S. law, effective 1978, and does not apply to any acts prior to that date (rather the similar, but not quite equal definitions the courts came up with over the years would be used -- see here). This is not simply intended for the parties (which filled in the blanks of a boilerplate contract), though it probably was limited to NFL players and their agents in general. Not sure about this one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not the same as a book or magazine, because "publication" implies more than simply printing a work, at least when used in the technical sense. Please refer to the definition at Publication#Legal definition and copyright. (I am no expert, but that is what my understanding is based on.) The copy of this contract here appears to have been made for the contract parties, rather than as a publication copy. Dominic·t 03:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. The printing of this form was covered by the same US copyright law as printing a book or magazine. The only aspect of this one which might not fit is the typed in information on the form, but I suspect that would be de minimus and/or uncopyrightable. Infrogmation (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2011 (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⚡ 18:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I originally uploaded this file to Wikipedia in 2008 with the permission of Mike Sebastian's family.--Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 18:32, 27 June 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1938Berkeleyrunning.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- {{PD-Pre1978}} requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 01:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with stated reason; it clearly was "published" in sense relevant to copyright; a printed poster or flyer is governed by the same US copyright law as a printed book or magazine. Infrogmation (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note per discussion with User:Fastly: The bottom of the flyer says "OVER". Which means the flyer had another side. So while User:Dominic claim that it wasn't published is false, there is still reason to doubt the copyright tag -- unless we see that other side, we can't say for sure whether or not there was any copyright notice. I am therefore not disputing this deletion, despite the incorrect reason for listing it. Infrogmation (talk) 13:16, 11 July 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1925OFHSFootball.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- {{PD-Pre1978}} requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 01:32, 27 June 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1951OFHSBasketball.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- {{PD-Pre1978}} requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 01:32, 27 June 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1924OFHSBasketball.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- {{PD-Pre1978}} requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 01:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how this wouldn't be considered published. Yearbooks would be publishing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course a yearbook is published. The image description does not state it comes from an uncopyrighted pre 1978 yearbook. Infrogmation (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how this wouldn't be considered published. Yearbooks would be publishing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:37, 4 July 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparenly not in the public domain. See User talk:Mjroots#Bank Hall windmill, Bretherton, Lancashire image where Ghughesarch (talk · contribs) comments that it is a photograph taken by Donald Muggeridge, who was, AFAICT, still alive in 1983. The image is of poor quality, and thus I would argue against it being used under NFUR rules, as it apparently would fail at least criteria #1 of WP:NFC. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The description of the photograph can be found here. The original is at the University of Kent, Canterbury. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 27 June 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:St3153c1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The image description page claims this image is from NASA, but gives no source URL or other citation. http://www.aps.org/units/dmp/gallery/nano.cfm uses this same image (look about halfway down) and credits "L. J. Whitman, J. A. Stroscio, R. A. Dragoset, and R. J. Celotta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1338 (1991)." Unless there's actual evidence that NASA (and not Whitman et al) owns the copyright (or lack thereof), we can't just assume it. B (talk) 14:06, 27 June 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Cloud poster.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This picture is definitely a composite work. However, the cumulonimbus picture appears identical to one of the cumulonimbus pictures in Ludlum, David McWilliams (2000). National Audubon Society Field Guide to Weather. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-679-40851-7. OCLC 56559729.. It appears that a page of this book was scanned, the cumulonimbus picture cut out, and the cutout pasted in the composite image. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 27 June 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User claims image is not as per the license stated, see Talk and User talk:Darley62. Nikthestoned 18:02, 27 June 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.