Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 August 18

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: Delete; deleted as G7 by Jenks24 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pacman Animated gif.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Even as a still it would be debatable whether Pacman eating cherries qualifies as "simple geometry". The animation is anything but simple, making the gif eligible for copyright, thus its use on Wikipedia a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:  Comment: The components to this image follow:

• A circle with a dot as an eye. The mouth is an effect produced by partially eclipsing the circle.
• You cannot copyright a cherry, it's a fruit and the illustration is a compilation of two red circles and a green curved line as a branch.
• The animation is a compilation of multiple frames using images in the public domain and consist of simple geometry.

Therefore on the above basis I do believe the file is a compilation of frames with each frame consisting of simple geometry. Which is exactly what the tag is for. It doesn't violate any copyright policies on Wikipedia nor have you given a very clear reason as to why the file shouldn't exist other than it's "debatable if the animation consists of simple geometry." ~ olowe2011 ^Talk 02:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Furthermore, How exactly have you concluded that the image is "un-free." As aforementioned all frames consist of various simple geometric shapes that are compiled together there is nothing complex or unique about it. It's like trying to claim the animated version of the Wikipedia Logo is "un-free" due to the fact it's animated or that a circle with circles inside of it that spin around is "un-free" because there it's "more complex." The simple fact that the circle, dot and cherries move in frames does not mean it automatically becomes "un-free" work. ~ olowe2011 ^Talk 02:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this isn't covered by "simple geometry," in my opinion. It's a depiction of a scene from a very, very common game (Pac-Man). That game is widely recognized around the world, and pretty much anyone who see's that image will immediately be able to see it as the signature action in one of the world's most recognizable games. (There is, perhaps, an argument to be made that the scene depicted in that gif is genericized, but I'm not a copyright lawyer, so that may be complete bullshit). --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  delete - I have reviewed the copyright status for the Pacman and strangely enough it's a copyright owned by NAMCO (now BANDAI.) The fact is despite my opinion that the circle eating other circles is simple enough to render it non-copyrightable it appears someone somewhere disagreed. The Law is the Law and I approve of the image being removed for the fact it's not compliant with Wikipedia's free image policies. Sorry for the upload I genuinely believed that a circle with a triangle mouth and black dot as an eye couldn't possibly be copyrighted. It's a bit like MacDonald's having a copyright over all M's created that feature a yellow outline and white centre. Thanks for getting me digging around, I learnt something new I won't be quick to forget. ~ olowe2011 ^Talk 02:42, 18 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ion Jinga accepting "The Freedon of The City of London".jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Said to be by "Private individual - subsequently used freely by a multitude of press publications", which contradicts the claim that it is released under the UK Government's Open Government License. —innotata 02:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: How is this image subject to copyright in the first place? The only person who could copyright it is the photographer. The Crown Copyright would be appropriate if the image was taken by a member of the British Government in the line of their duties. For the sake of advice it might be a good idea to find a template based on the following factors:
• If the image was taken by a member of the UK Government in the line of their duties its subject to Crown Copyright. However in this case it would be appropriate to include the source webpage or documentation released by the British Government.
• If the image was taken by yourself and you are not a Civil servant it's inappropriate to give it a Crown Copyright. In this case it would be suitable to include a template with the relevant copyright information which reflects yourself as the photographer.
• If the image was taken by another person who is not a Civil servant it would be applicable to include the source document or webpage, date and a link to a place which the author permits free use. Even in this situation the template would need to be replaced by one which properly indicates the license restrictions imposed by the original photographer.

I hope this helps. ~ olowe2011 ^Talk 03:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the original given source is [1] which provides no specific photo credit. As such there is no evidence that this image is the work of the UK Government at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abraham Woodhull and Caleb Brewster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• From a mural dating to 1952, could be public domain for lack of copyright notice (but full photo not provided), but it is not public domain simply because it is displayed publicly. —innotata 03:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: If the image is of a mural commissioned by the public school then the mural is in the public domain. However, in this case there would have to be evidence of the fact that the image was de-facto (in-fact) commissioned by the public school and not another private individual or organization. If the mural was commissioned by a private individual or organization then, either the creator or the receiver of the work holds copyright subject to it being still valid (which is highly unlikely given the date but not impossible.) In this case it would be prudent to find out who owns the copyright. As @Innotata: previously mentioned, just because the mural is in a public place does not mean that the mural's copyrights are owned by the landowners. In simple terms if an Artist copyright's their artwork and permits its display in a public place such as a gallery or in this case a school ground it does not automatically turn the copyrights over to the landowners. Therefore, in conclusion your best bet is searching around for the mural's creator and finding out if the public school did in fact commission the work. Here are the course of actions applicable to this image:

• If the mural's copyrights are owned by the original creator or commissioner and this creator is a private individual and not a publicly operating institution or civil servant then that person must have consented to it's use or given guidelines on how the artwork may be used. In order for it to be used on Wikipedia the copyright owner must have permitted full commercial rights and the right for a person to re-use their works without consent. If you find a place which the copyright holder has given these permissions, then that information should be included in the file's description. A template which designates the file as copyrighted would be a good idea as well.
• If the mural was commissioned by or created by a publicly funded institution such as the public school then the image is in the public domain. In this case it would be applicable to show evidence which proves that the artwork was de-facto created by a publicly funded body. If this is the case retaining the current template would be suitable.
• If the mural has an expired copyright then you will need to find the copyright legislation which states that artistic works are excluded or removed from their copyrights after a certain length of time without renewal (indication by the copyright holder as to if or not the copyright license is still rendered effective from a certain date within a time-frame the same law would allow.) If this is suspected then looking through the State's (in which the work was created) copyright legislation might render useful results. ~ olowe2011 ^Talk 03:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where the heck are you getting this information from? Publicly funded institutions in the US are allowed to hold copyright—only the works of the federal government and a small number of state agencies are public domain, so if a school district commissioned the mural, it might be the copyright holder. However, it's not clear that is the case. Since the mural is from before 1978, it would be public domain if there were no copyright notice; however, there's no information about whether a copyright notice was included, and in my experience they quite often are on murals. —innotata 04:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: If its funded by the tax payer in the United States of America it's public domain (in most cases.) Only in certain circumstances is there an exemption for example photographs, maps ect that have been classified. And I am a Lawyer who specialises in Criminal Law however, as part of my qualification copyright and trademark legislation was studied in depth. I guess technically speaking publicly funded institution should be replaced with institutions paid for using funding from the tax payers. ~ olowe2011 ^Talk 04:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing of that sort in the laws, per the U.S. Copyright Office, "Works (other than edicts of government) prepared by officers or employees of any government (except the U.S. Government) including State, local, or foreign governments, are subject to registration if they are otherwise copyrightable." The applies to works commissioned by taxpayer-funded bodies. —innotata 02:38, 19 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:BrendanWGillSuit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Work of the New Jersey state government; unlike the US federal government and some other state governments (eg, California), its works are not public domain. —innotata 03:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The image is of a person employed by the US Federal Government or a civil servant therefore the image is technically in the public domain according to U.S. Federal Law. The Law in the United States of America stipulates that any civil servant or Federal Employee is subject to their image being used in the public domain unless specified by an exemption in the Law (for example CIA Special Agents.) The aforementioned is applicable in the situation this person is in fact employed by the State and not privately by a State Employee.~ olowe2011 ^Talk 03:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're thinking about laws on public accessibility, not copyright. State governments are not considered to be part of the federal government, and as I mentioned, they with few exceptions hold copyright on their works. By contrast, all works of the federal government are public domain, including those of the CIA. —innotata 04:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The statement that all works of the Federal Government are public domain is untrue. Certain works such as maps, photographs ect that are classified may not be released legally to the public until unclassified. In may be de Jure (in law) that all works of the Federal Government are technically public domain however this is not de facto (in fact) practised. There is actually an ongoing debate (very complicated, years long and very... very boring) as to if or not the Law does prohibit the classification of work done by the Federal Government of the United States. ~ olowe2011 ^Talk 05:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All works of the federal government are public domain; federal law does not make state government works public domain—see my comment above. Classification status is obviously not relevant to this particular file, but I'll address it because you're conflating two rather different concepts: public access and the public domain. The classified works of the CIA are public domain, because the government cannot own copyright in them (once they are leaked copyright cannot be used to restrict their redistribution, although other laws may apply). The works of state governments are not always public domain, because state governments can usually copyright them and restrict their use and redistribution in certain ways (making them not free enough for Wikipedia). —innotata 02:47, 19 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chinese migrant workers in a construction site.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo is by a news agency from China; copyright in Chinese photos lasts for 50 years, so copyright cannot have expired. —innotata 03:40, 18 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colorado State Representative Jessie Danielson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Work of the Colorado state government; unlike the US federal government and some other state governments (eg, California), its works are not public domain by default. —innotata 03:41, 18 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:CBC News Network Amanda Lang.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence CBC has given the license shown. AFAIK being a crown company in Canada does not entail surrendering copyright. BethNaught (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The image is a crop from this publicity photo which is linked from this bio page. The uploader has provided no evidence that the material is in the puiblic domain, and the CBC bio page has a copyright notice on it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Delete; deleted as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derrick Monasterio.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Google search reveals several prior publications, including one dated four years ago and a Twitter profile pic. I can't find an original source/owner so listing here for further insight rather than tagging copyvio. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:28, 18 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kathryn Craft in 2014.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Same/similar to image on [2] which carries a copyright notice stating "Unless otherwise noted, photographs of Kathryn by Jackson Williams." There is no note otherwise and the uploader is called John. Moreover the uploader's description claims he used a Galaxy S4 but the EXIF tags say it was a Nikon D40. I smell a copyvio. BethNaught (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This was a total screw-up on my end by uploading the wrong image. Please delete this image and I will update with the correct image. Sorry. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Delete; deleted as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:55a0759d2e670.image.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I just cleaned up about a dozen clear copyright violations from this uploader. This image is almost certainly also pulled from somewhere on the Internet but I can't identify an original source here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @ESkog: The same user has been uploading more images (as seen here) that have been pulled from places on the Internet as well, though with licensing provided. However, since image copyright isn't really a field that I'm accustomed to, I'm not too sure if the fair-use rationales that the uploader used are sufficient enough, especially considering how there are free photos of the drivers, most of which are perfectly fine to use. Zappa24Mati 03:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This editor has uploaded a bunch of copyvios and this probably copied off a web site too. At 300 × 451, this is a web image and not something from his own camera. -- Whpq (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.