Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3[edit]

File:Terhune With Bruce, Wolf, Lass, and Lad.jpg[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 as G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Terhune With Bruce, Wolf, Lass, and Lad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • this photo lacks a source, but can be found at http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c19596. Unfortunately, the photo tells of no publishing date (the "between 1900 and 1920" is for creation). The item is part of LOT 6894, which is a collection of "News pictures and studio portraits, ca. 1896-1930" by Albert Payson Terhune and was gifted to the LoC in 1944 by Mrs Terhune (http://loc.gov/pictures/item/2005690512). There is no indication if this item had registered for copyright, and its publication status is certainly unknown. This is a private (studio) photo, taken for Terhune by a hired photographer or friend (note that he has connections with several notable photographers, such as Margaret Bourke-White) and hence unpublished to this date (having remained in his private collection till gifted by his wife to the LoC). As the LoC puts that the "Rights status of individual images [are] not evaluated", that means the Instrumentality of Gift by Mrs Terhune did not abandon the copyrights to the images. As such, it would be 70 years pma for a to-date unpublished image, and presuming a 25-year-old photographer during 1900 to 1920 who dies at 80, that could mean its copyright could exist from 2036 to 2056. To use this photo necessitate the verification that the photo was either published (i.e. distributed in some form to the public) before 1923, had its copyright registered with the US Copyrights Office before 1923, or was published during 1923–1989 without compliance to US copyright laws. Jappalang (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As one of the dogs in the picture, Lad, died in 1918, while Wolf, another dog pictured, was born in 1913. So the picture was taken during that time frame. It was one of several post cards Terhune had made to distribute after the success of the novel featuring Lad, which was also published in 1918. Not, until this is resolved, I've removed the image from both articles it was in as one is currently an FA Candidate and the other a good article. Also, the image does not lack a source, it clearly indicates it was retrieved from the LOC. At the time, it was available for download, and I removed the link after discovering it was only a temporary one for a one-time download[1]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted, creation is not publication. The basis for US copyright is publication or copyright registration before 1923, or publication thereafter without properly following copyright law. There is no information that this image is of those circumstances. If it was a postcard, please point out the source that states this image as such. Jappalang (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's info page[2] lists "Date Created/Published: [between 1900 and 1920]" for this specific picture (versus the overall summary of the collection as a whole). I think the individual record is certainly more accurate than the general collection page you linked to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The field "Created/Published" means "created or published", not "created and published". Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof please...and proof that in this case it means one or the other and not both. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, prove it was published, not just created... Jappalang (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, nevermind...if it is going to be questioned and there obviously is no way to prove one way or another, will just CSD it. Not worth the heartburn. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:10, 3 June 2010 (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.


File:Sulawesi selatan -2-.JPG[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⚡ 02:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sulawesi selatan -2-.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Delete: there is no evidence this, or the source, image is in the public domain as claimed and there is no source date on either image, so we cannot possible know its status, so should err on the side of caution. ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2010 (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.


File:Hzphotoneutral-3.jpg[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⚡ 02:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hzphotoneutral-3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • No evidence that photo is available under stated license. Photographer is Roslyn Zinn, who is not the uploader, see Howard Zinn at Beacon Press 75.244.120.5 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This photo is taken from the Howard Zinn DVD entitled You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train. See review and sales sites for the DVD here, here, here and here. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo was used repeatedly as a publicity photograph on a half dozen or more of Zinn's books, including the Beacon books cited by the person who raises the question on whether this is legit use. This is fair use. If this photo is deleted, then we can start deleting the publicity photographs of all authors on Wikipedia on the same basis. Skywriter (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does allow limited use of non-free content so long as the use complies with the critera at WP:NFCC. However, in this case, even though Howard Zinn has recently died, we don't need to use a non-free image of him. Three much higher resolution images that are free are available at commons. I've switched Howard Zinn to use this one. —RP88 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there is no evidence this image is freely licenced nor that the photographer, if she owns the copyright, or the person who commissioned the work, has given her permission. Generally publicity photos are not freely licenced unless you can specifically show this is the case with this one. ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (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.


File:Jordan Crawford.jpg[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jordan Crawford.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_June_3&oldid=1138572132"