Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 April 12#File:Amanda Knox.jpg

: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 {{admin|After Midnight}} AnomieBOT⚡ 12:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Lebrel.gif}} ([{{fullurl:File:Lebrel.gif|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 April 12#File:Lebrel.gif}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Lebrel.gif}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Lebrel.gif}}}}}} logs]).

• This image looks very suspicious to me. I couldn't find it online, but it looks very much like an image taken from the BBC or some other news organization. ← George ^talk 09:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• :[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456976/html/nn3page1.stm Found it!] Nominated for speedy deletion. ← George ^talk 09:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• But I am going to decline the speedy delete as it says university of Texas/CIA/inoflebanon. It sounds as if it may be public domain US Gov. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Looks like a newer version [http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/maps/Lebanon's%20main%20Religious%20Groups.gif of this], which is probably from the US stated department, considering [http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/maps/maps.htm this page]. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:*Editors more familiar with image copyright may understand this issue better than I, but my understanding was that the image source being listed as "University of Texas/CIA/Infolebanon" was just a reference to where the data in it came from (the percentages, and the general layout of the map), but that the image itself would still be copyrighted by the BBC (which drew the actual lines/colors/diagrams themselves, based on said data). Doesn't that make this image a blatant copyright violation? ← George ^talk 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Concur with George, the coloring and exact drawing was up to the BBC and, therefore, it is copyrighted even though some data may have come from PD sources. If evidence exists that this image was identical and merely redrawn and re-colored, it would not attain a new copyright, but I see no evidence that this is the case. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Fastily}} AnomieBOT⚡ 02:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Amanda Knox.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Amanda Knox.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 April 12#File:Amanda Knox.jpg}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Amanda Knox.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Amanda Knox.jpg}}}}}} logs]).

• Copyrighted image of a suspect in a murder case. It doesn't seem that having an image is necessary to understand the case/article. Plus, the rationale that the image cannot be replaced because "the subject has aged" is more than far-fetched. Averell (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:* Keep. The image page clearly states, "Purpose of use: Used to show attire worn on day of murder, and general appearance of Knox at the time." Sources state that the subject gained weight after age 20 and no longer has the same appearance. This image is used in the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" which has been continually attacked to censor information, including deletion of the house diagram twice, and deletion of double-sourced background facts, twice, which stated the lead suspect had been released by Milan police, just 5 days before the stabbing/murder, when caught afterhours in a Milan school with a knife stolen from their kitchen, while holding a PC & mobile phone stolen from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock through an upstairs window. Because this image was labeled, at initial upload, as showing attire, this entry appears to be a frivolous complaint about the image. -Wikid77 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:*Question. Is there a verifiable source that says that these clothes (photographed in January 2009) were the same as those worn on the day of the murder, in November 2007? If so, at what part of that day was she seen wearing the clothes? Amanda Knox did not have an alibi for the time of the murder so presumably no-one can verify what she was wearing at that time. Bluewave (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{tl|dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

:Seen. I'll re-list this in the appropriate place. Averell (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Fastily}} AnomieBOT⚡ 02:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Raffaele Sollecito 20090612.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Raffaele Sollecito 20090612.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 April 12#File:Raffaele Sollecito 20090612.jpg}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Raffaele Sollecito 20090612.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Raffaele Sollecito 20090612.jpg}}}}}} logs]).

• Copyrighted image of a suspect in a murder case. It doesn't seem that having an image is necessary to understand the case/article. Plus, the rationale that the image cannot be replaced because the person must be shown at a given moment is more than far-fetched, to say the least. Averell (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:* Keep. The image page clearly states, "Purpose of use: Used to show Raffaele Sollecito during trial, also showing eyeglasses and hair as worn" (during trial). This image is used in the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" which has been continually attacked to censor information, including deletion of the house diagram twice, and deletion of double-sourced background facts, twice, which stated the lead suspect had been released by Milan police, just 5 days before the stabbing/murder, when caught afterhours in a Milan school with a knife stolen from their kitchen, while holding a PC & mobile phone stolen on 13-Oct-2007 from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock through an upstairs window. Because this image has always been clearly labeled (see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Raffaele_Sollecito_20090612.jpg&action=history Sollecito image history]) as showing his appearance at trial with eyeglasses & hair, this entry appears to be a frivolous complaint about the image. -Wikid77 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{tl|dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

:Seen. I'll re-list this in the appropriate place. Averell (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Fastily}} AnomieBOT⚡ 02:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Knox Sollecito trial end.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Knox Sollecito trial end.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 April 12#File:Knox Sollecito trial end.jpg}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Knox Sollecito trial end.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Knox Sollecito trial end.jpg}}}}}} logs]).

• Copyrighted image of a suspect in a murder case. It doesn't seem that having an image is necessary to understand the case/article. No compelling rationale is given for including this non-free image. Averell (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:* Keep. The image page clearly states, "Purpose of use: Used to show both defendants side-by-side during trial, also showing attire worn at end of trial". This image is used in the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" which has been continually attacked to censor information, including deletion of the house diagram twice, and deletion of double-sourced background facts, twice, which stated the lead suspect had been released by Milan police on 27-Oct-2007, just 5 days before the stabbing/murder, when caught afterhours in a Milan school with a knife stolen from their kitchen, while holding a PC & mobile phone stolen from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock through an upstairs window (13-Oct-2007). Because this image has always been clearly labeled (see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Knox_Sollecito_trial_end.jpg&action=history image history]) as showing appearance of the 2 suspects "side-by-side" (not isolated from each other), and noting attire worn at the end of the year-long trial, this entry appears to be a frivolous complaint about the image. The image is not used for mere identification, but rather, to illustrate attire and position of the suspects, as side-by-side, at the end of the trial. -Wikid77 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{tl|dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

:Seen. I'll re-list this in the appropriate place. Averell (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Pascal.Tesson}} AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Poetrypic2.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Poetrypic2.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 April 12#File:Poetrypic2.jpg}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Poetrypic2.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Poetrypic2.jpg}}}}}} logs]).

• Conflicting PD-self and "copyright held by X" claim. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Fastily}} AnomieBOT⚡ 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:The Game.ogg}} ([{{fullurl:File:The Game.ogg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 April 12#File:The Game.ogg}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:The Game.ogg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:The Game.ogg}}}}}} logs]).

• Spoken Wikipedia article created by a synthetic software program rather than a user actually reading it. Without information about the software used to create it, it's unclear that the uploader may properly relicense its output under the GFDL. (As an aside, this also seems a bit out of line from the mission of Spoken Wikipedia, but that's not really a question for this forum). (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:*the program is called 2nd speech center, see here for the licence of the software. part 3 is the limitations. it does not mention anything about the output being restricted. Sophie (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

::The license you posted doesn't concern the files that are created but the software components. Hekerui (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

:::See The Licence Here! - Sophie (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

::::You just posted the same thing again. Does the program come with documentation explaining what uses are available for it? Often, free and educational software is not licensed to create for-profit products, which would be incompatible with our licensing. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

::::: IMPORTANT! - I am checking with the makers of the software to see if there is any restrictions on the software. See here for updates and stuff. - Sophie

• Comment A thought: copyright protection applies to human creations, not those of computers. The "source" is GFDL, so I would imagine that the same would apply to this? Otherwise anyone who used a device (like a camera?) to make something for WP would be incurring a copyright by the device's creator, right? — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Although the copyright status of the files are not clear from the software license, I know that there are TTS programs who explicitly state that the end-user has all rights to the generated sound files. decltype (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

{{ambox

| type = notice

| text = Zero2000 has emailed me saying there are no restrictions on the audio files. Read the emails at the bottom of this page. --Sophie (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

}}

• Comment, for the email: need a more specific release (preferably something through OTRS); for the machine recordidng: my understanding is that we shouldn't be uploading them (content wise). Blurpeace 20:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

: I have emailed OTRS the content of the email they sent to me, no reply yet Sophie 13:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

: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 {{admin|Spartaz}} AnomieBOT⚡ 13:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:ATMlogo.gif}} ([{{fullurl:File:ATMlogo.gif|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 April 12#File:ATMlogo.gif}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:ATMlogo.gif}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:ATMlogo.gif}}}}}} logs]).

• Org at http://maf.mod.gov.my/ and has copyright notice, though not sure about Malaysian copyright law or if that's a a gov site.  fetchcomms☛ 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

: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.