Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 June 21

: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 {{admin|TLSuda}} AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

::File:Kirk Douglas family - 1947.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Kirk Douglas family - 1947.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2014+June+21%23File%3AKirk+Douglas+family+-+1947.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Kirk Douglas family - 1947.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AKirk+Douglas+family+-+1947.jpg}} logs]).

• As pointed out to the uploader at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Publicity_photographs on 17 June, you can see the copyright notice underneath the label somebody has attached to the back of the photograph - the purple text? [http://web.archive.org/web/20140613201357/http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjk5/z/JgUAAOxyBotTYA92/$_57.JPG This is] the photographer's standard copyright stamp. (See also [http://web.archive.org/web/20140613200601/http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMzA5/z/NH8AAOxy3zNSfa8Y/$%28KGrHqRHJC!FJoHbfBhbBSf,8Y,CJQ~~60_57.JPG]) Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

::Comment This is an RKO photo and they were quite efficient at stamping the backs of their photos with copyright notices. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Orson_Welles_-_AE.jpg This] is a recent Commons deletion re: an RKO photo. We hope (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

:::There are ten Visual Art copyrights that RKO has registered, new or renewals, since 1978. None of them are remotely related to publicity stills. --Light show (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• There are no photos copyrighted, new or renewals, registered to that photographer, even without his middle initial, since 1978. This, like 99.99% of press and publicity photos, were not registered and never renewed. Since the renewal would have been registered around 1975, let me know if you want me to search the archives. Note also that a renewal requires an initial registration, which was rarely, if ever, done, as there was no benefit to paying an attorney and registration fees for press or publicity photos. --Light show (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

:There are 3 Visual Art copyrights even related to Kirk Douglas, which appear to be illustrations in a book. --Light show (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2014 (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 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 {{admin|TLSuda}} AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

::File:Anne Bancroft - 1956.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Anne Bancroft - 1956.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2014+June+21%23File%3AAnne+Bancroft+-+1956.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Anne Bancroft - 1956.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AAnne+Bancroft+-+1956.jpg}} logs]).

• Licensed as being without copyright marks. There's copyright information on the back of the [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/8/8a/20140125032406!Anne_Bancroft_-_1956.jpg original upload]. Under the release is a stamp for Bert Six at Warner Brothers that says "License to reproduce with copyright notice granted for newspapers and magazines and other periodicals". [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4UVl-B4iDjNWjN0U2lvaFlYYU0/edit Copy] of the notice right side up. We hope (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• There are no copyright registrations, either new or renewals, filed for or by "Bert Six" since 1978. Any renewal would have been filed around 1984. It's just another rubber stamped photo credit like the Kirk Douglas one. Since I didn't see the notice stamped, let me know if I should change the license to "not renewed." --Light show (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

::The Warner film was renewed in 1983--Six was working for Warner. We hope (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

:Type of Work: Motion Picture

:Registration Number / Date: RE0000192954 / 1983-12-29

:Renewal registration for: LP0000006379 / 1955-03-19

:Title:New York confidential. By Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc.

:::Film copyrights have no bearing on photograph copyrights. See [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sellers-1966.jpg Sellers photo] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:We_hope&oldid=599472102#Splendor_photo subsequent explanation here]. --Light show (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2014 (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 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 {{admin|TLSuda}} AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

::File:Wong Tai Sin 3.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Wong Tai Sin 3.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2014+June+21%23File%3AWong+Tai+Sin+3.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Wong Tai Sin 3.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AWong+Tai+Sin+3.jpg}} logs]).

• KennyYudashi and a suspected sockpuppet of his (see the open SPI for behavioral evidence) have uploaded several obvious copyvio images of this and other landmarks in China. There has been no response to these past issues (or any discussion at all evidencing an understanding of our content policies). Furthermore, this image has minimal EXIF, suggesting it may have been lifted from another source. I believe this file should be deleted per a Wikipedia equivalent of Commons' precautionary principle, as there exists significant doubt as to the validity of the claim that KennyYudashi holds the copyright to this image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:35, 21 June 2014 (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 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 {{admin|TLSuda}} AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

::File:Stone-carved couple .jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Stone-carved couple .jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2014+June+21%23File%3AStone-carved+couple+.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Stone-carved couple .jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AStone-carved+couple+.jpg}} logs]).

• KennyYudashi and a suspected sockpuppet of his (see the open SPI for behavioral evidence) have uploaded several obvious copyvio images of this and other landmarks in China. There has been no response to these past issues (or any discussion at all evidencing an understanding of our content policies). Furthermore, this image has minimal EXIF, suggesting it may have been lifted from another source. I believe this file should be deleted per a Wikipedia equivalent of Commons' precautionary principle, as there exists significant doubt as to the validity of the claim that KennyYudashi holds the copyright to this image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:37, 21 June 2014 (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 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 {{admin|TLSuda}} AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

::File:The Lvzu Hall.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:The Lvzu Hall.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2014+June+21%23File%3AThe+Lvzu+Hall.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:The Lvzu Hall.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AThe+Lvzu+Hall.jpg}} logs]).

• KennyYudashi and a suspected sockpuppet of his (see the open SPI for behavioral evidence) have uploaded several obvious copyvio images of this and other landmarks in China. There has been no response to these past issues (or any discussion at all evidencing an understanding of our content policies). Furthermore, this image has minimal EXIF, suggesting it may have been lifted from another source. I believe this file should be deleted per a Wikipedia equivalent of Commons' precautionary principle, as there exists significant doubt as to the validity of the claim that KennyYudashi holds the copyright to this image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:37, 21 June 2014 (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 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 {{admin|TLSuda}} AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

::File:Xinyi Middle School.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Xinyi Middle School.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2014+June+21%23File%3AXinyi+Middle+School.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Xinyi Middle School.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AXinyi+Middle+School.jpg}} logs]).

• KennyYudashi and a suspected sockpuppet of his (see the open SPI for behavioral evidence) have uploaded several obvious copyvio images of this and other landmarks in China. There has been no response to these past issues (or any discussion at all evidencing an understanding of our content policies). Furthermore, this image has minimal EXIF, suggesting it may have been lifted from another source. I also suspect, but am not certain, that this same file was previously uploaded by User:Isis Lai and deleted as a copyvio. Regardless, I believe this file should be deleted per a Wikipedia equivalent of Commons' precautionary principle, as there exists significant doubt as to the validity of the claim that KennyYudashi holds the copyright to this image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:39, 21 June 2014 (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 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 {{admin|TLSuda}} AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

::File:Xinyi 2.jpg ([{{fullurl:File:Xinyi 2.jpg|action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2014+June+21%23File%3AXinyi+2.jpg%5D%5D}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:Xinyi 2.jpg|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page=File%3AXinyi+2.jpg}} logs]).

• KennyYudashi and a suspected sockpuppet of his (see the open SPI for behavioral evidence) have uploaded several obvious copyvio images of this and other landmarks in China. There has been no response to these past issues (or any discussion at all evidencing an understanding of our content policies). Furthermore, this image has minimal EXIF, suggesting it may have been lifted from another source. I also suspect, but am not certain, that this same file was previously uploaded by User:Isis Lai and deleted as a copyvio. Regardless, I believe this file should be deleted per a Wikipedia equivalent of Commons' precautionary principle, as there exists significant doubt as to the validity of the claim that KennyYudashi holds the copyright to this image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:39, 21 June 2014 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.