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⚡ 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jimmer-fredette.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• All of the editor's other uploads are copyvios/have been deleted for missing copyvios. Absent source information means there's no way to verify whether the PD-self license is valid, and the low res/high quality combination usually means it's a copyvio. Mosmof (talk) 02:03, 2 November 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.

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⚡ 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baba aisa var doondo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• TV Title card - So not self as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:56, 2 November 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.

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:World Regions.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The license of the identical copy on commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_large_blank_world_map_with_oceans_marked_in_blue.PNG) states that this file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license and was recently updated/uploaded by another user other the uploader here. Hence, User:LS C HIST had lied about this being his own creation. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:30, 2 November 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.

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Writing Systems 1.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Identical copy of image file on commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Writing_Systems_1.jpg) lead me to believe that the original uploader here (11 Sep 2010) is contradicting his own copyright status as his sock has uploaded the file on commons (22 Feb 2010). Possibly, the image file itself was lifted off from some websites and transplanted here to claim as his own. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:43, 2 November 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.

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Writing Systems 2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See also MfD on File:Writing Systems 1.png and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Writing_Systems_2.jpg for further details. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:46, 2 November 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.

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⚡ 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maestro Raja.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claim of copyright ownership of this low-res image seems unlikely. The contributor has a history of copyright issues on Wikipedia. Please see specifically discussion here Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 24#File:Vijay-spotted.jpg and in the next four sections. Note that in the first section he claimed copyright when metadata specifically proved other authorship. Note that in the second image of the grouping, he first said, "This file is created by myself" and then said, "To be frank with you. Through One of my family member (very close) I got this photo." After that, another contributor found it was a Getty Image by photographer Steve Powell. There are other images where he specifically and positively asserts that he was the photographer and decides to be "frank" and admit that he was not, though he in each case appealed for the images to be kept because he asserted that he had permission he could not prove. He very plainly does not care to follow copyright policies, and he has demonstrated that his word on this issue cannot be trusted. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - Up loader has no idea about copyright see hereand should be restricted from any more uploads until they can assert that they do. Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a very likely copyvio. Since the problem continues after IP block earlier (since he was IP sock edit warring on the earlier deletions, I'd blocked the IP then) and the user continues to claim ignorance of any problems, I'd recommend that further problems be dealt with through blocks. —SpacemanSpiff 15:50, 2 November 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.

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⚡ 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Devar-and-kamal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See listing immediately above. Low resolution and history of deceptive copyright claims. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - and restrict user as per my comment in section above. Off2riorob (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - this is a screenshot from the film Devar Magan--Sodabottle (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Definite copyvio from the movie Thevar Magan. —SpacemanSpiff 15:53, 2 November 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.

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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minecraft classic.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is listed as public domain because http://minecraft.net/copyright.jsp states "You're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game". However what the page actually states is "You're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game, but don't just rip art resources and pass them around." So not quite an open license. The image could probably be used under fair use. Taemyr (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game..." Is this a screenshot? Yes. It's public domain. I don't see how you can possibly misinterpret this. --69.91.174.135 (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By art resources it means the textures, models, etc. found in the game, more specifically the bin/Minecraft.jar file. Notch allows you to create texture packs by editting those files to your liking and distributed but he doesn't want his/his artist's [art]work distributed. Screenshots are "pictures" taken of the game. Xxcom9a (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, which is why I listed it as Possibly unfree files. This is probably what the author means, but the sentence can be interpreted to deny the use of ingame pictures to recreate art resources. Taemyr (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a court would say in case of such a dispute about interpretation is "How would a reasonable person interpret this?" And a reasonable person would say that "whatever you want" is pretty clear, and the meaning of "rip" and "resource" is pretty well-defined in this context. To rip a medium means to create a copy of it, or of constituent files or sections within it: ripping does not generally include "reverse-engineering" textures or whatever. If you're still concerned, you could just ask him.--greenrd (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this flag, as a screen shot is not an 'Art Resource' as the term is used in the above quotation. There is no 'possibly,' or 'probably' here, the term has a static definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.207.246 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a non Wikipedia editor, I appreciate the work you guys to to carefully consider the legal status of this great body of work. However I assure you that Notch would most definitely want screenshots passed around as much as possible! If this is a problem perhaps you can contact him on his twitter page or blog to fully clarify the licence: I'm sure he'd be happy to do so should he see the message --77.98.221.8 (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open license means more that just the work being passed around. It means freedom to put the work to use in a manner that works for you. So it includes stuff like reverse engineering the screenshots to create graphic resources. Taemyr (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is obviously allowed under the game's license, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag from the image page. Lx45803 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a tag while discussion is ongoing is a bad idea, since it just hides the fact that there is a discussion going. Taemyr (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Clearly usable on Wikipedia under fair use, at least. But the restrictions on using the textures, which are in the image, means that it isn't public domain. Thue | talk 13:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a screenshot and therefore not ripping the actual textures from the game, it should be fine? If I really have to I can ask Notch on his Twitter for clarification if this is still going to be discussed a lot more. Xxcom9a (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine? Not sure, hence this discussion. Spesifically my worry is that I am not convinced that the licence doesn't prohib reverse enginering of the graphic resources. Taemyr (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As to reverse engineering being allowed, only directly taking ("ripping") art resources (like textures) is prohibited, and using the screenshots for any purpose is explicitly allowed. I'm utterly confused as to why this is even considered an issue. Screenshots are clearly public domain, so therefore reverse engineering is allowed, just like the actual graphics resources are clearly not public domain. 173.30.136.84 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why this discussion even exists. The license is clearly meant to protect the actual art resources from being stolen, not to prevent screenshots. Unless you can explain how a screenshot is reverse engineering. How does this get closed? ferret (talk) 13:07, 16 November 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.

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. If uploader or anyone else can show this was originally published in multiple magazines and/or locations prior to 1978 with permission of copyright holder, the item may be undeleted (non-admin may put in the request at WP:REFUND). For legal reasoning, see Commons:COM:CB#Advertisements. For non-admin reference, original image is located here: [1]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GingerGrant1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Needs evidence for the claimed PD-Pre1978 license tag. Only source given is a blog, which does not give any original publication details. dave pape (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original link giving date evidence is busted. Here's a new link: [2] on Esquire.com which also shows the image as being from 1964. Since the image was of Ginger on Gilligan's Island which aired from 1964 to 1967, the date is well in advance of the 1978 date. Sf46 (talk)

Yes, certainly the photo is from circa 1964, but what evidence is there that it was published without a copyright notice before 1978. It's quite possible, but I don't see any information on the source websites about that, and we can't just assume it. --dave pape (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I've often been told that proving a negative is a near impossibility. If the photo had a copyright, it would be very easy to prove that it had one. The only proof that it doesn't have one, is the lack of one, i.e. trying to prove a negative. Sf46 (talk)

It's not actually proving a negative. It's in fact proving the existence of something - preferably a physical copy that we know was published before 1978, which one can then examine to see if there is a copyright notice on it. A sometimes difficult task, but it can be productive, such as File:Nixon handout 1950.jpg (from the front page a couple days ago). --dave pape (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As Dave says, there is no evidence the picture was published before 1978. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 5 November 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.

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⚡ 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Album cover Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:14, 2 November 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.

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⚡ 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Album cover Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:47, 2 November 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.