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⚡ 02:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Creator and author of photo is subject of photo, which is an impossibility unless he took this photo in the mirror. There has been OTRS correspondence concerning this photo. I request that it be accessed and verified, that it be deleted if the copyright status is not firmly established, and if retained that the actual creator and author of this photo be listed. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no indication of who the photographer is in the ticket. Additionally, it discussed the other photos seen at Special:ListFiles/C.P.Taft. No way is Denis the creator of the movie poster File:NDENIS FOTO -4.jpg. All the images by this user should be deleted. I'm not really pleased with the ticket's handling. – Adrignola talk 18:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I forgot about those other images. Agree that all should be deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrignola, as indicated below, the client said in December 2010 that he took this photo with a remote shutter release.--Chaser (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is all very suspicious self-promotion material. I don't think we can trust this user for his copyrights assertions. --damiens.rf 21:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*DO NOT DELETE. A ticket was issued (#2010112710004281) pursuant to complete review of the copyright status of all the photos. The OTRS Adminstrator reviewed everything, and YES, the OTRS correspondence should be viewed.

That correspondence will show that all photos of Nelson Denis were taken with a remote shutter release. The correspondence also shows that Nelson Denis is the Writer, Director, and Executive Producer of the film (titled "Vote For Me!") and owns complete and undivided copyright to the film and the publicity photos, which he himself took.

There is no copyright issue here, an OTRS ticket was properly issued, and ad hominem commentary is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Rubbish. The two B&W photographs uploaded by "Taft" [1][2] were taken some distance away in a crowded setting and were obviously not taken "with a remote shutter release." The movie poster does not list Denis as executive producer. There are several producers, none of them him, and an executive producer would not necessarily control the copyright of the poster or the production stills. Given the self-promotion at work here, I strongly doubt that Denis would have omitted giving himself executive producer credit, in either the article or the poster, if he was actually executive producer. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. An OTRS Permission Ticket is not "Rubbish." In addition, the above paragraph offers no discussion of File:NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg, the photo which this editor asked us to review. File:NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg has an OTRS Ticket and an OTRS correspondence which clearly shows that Nelson Denis owns the copyright, and authorized the usage of this photo, which was taken by him with a remote shutter release.

The other photos of Denis were also taken by him with a remote shutter release, as is often done in group shots. The Executive Producer credit of Nelson Denis is plainly shown in the Internet Movie Database, at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304912/fullcredits#cast .

However, these other photos are not the subject of this review. The photo which is under review (File:NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg) has no copyright issues, it has an OTRS Permission Ticket, and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

No I think I've been fairly clear on File:NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg, which is that this photo was obviously taken by a third party and that your claims are false. By the way, I think that you should log on to one of your accounts in order to respond to this.

According to Adrignola, who has seen the OTRS ticket, there was no indication as to who the photographer was. I'd suggest that the "Denis used a remote shutter release" nonsense claimed by the IP was inspired by my sarcastic comment that Denis was the photographer only if he photographed himself in the mirror. I have no idea who this IP user is (though I could hazard a guess) but I'd suggest that his claims are not worthy of belief given his obvious dissembling on the "I photographed myself" bit. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the OTRS agent who originally handled this ticket. With the client's waiver of policy policy concerns, I'm going to discuss some of the details of our correspondence. First, Nelson Denis told me back in December 2010 that these photos were taken with a remote shutter release. It is not something he has only said recently. Second, I think the licensing of "FOTO -1" is valid even if you don't believe the bit about a shutter release. The copyright for a casual portrait is commonly deemed to belong to the subject even if a friend or amateur photographer took it for him.

As to the other photos, I did not critically examine them back in December, as I should have, to determine whether a remote shutter release was plausible for images like File:NDENIS PHOTO -2.jpg. In our second set of correspondence, over the last few days, Mr. Denis has indicated that he took all the photos with a remote shutter release with a timer function. This is something with which probably all of us are familiar from timers on standard digital cameras. Given that movie shots referenced in this ticket are taken from a very low budget movie -- "how low Mr. Denis (does) not want published" -- it's not surprising that he did not have a dedicated cameraman. But again, even if you disbelieve him, those files would still be acceptably licensed. The movie shots would be work-for-hire, since any cameraman was working for Mr. Denis, the director and writer, when he shot it and so the copyright would belong to Denis, who in turn relicensed it when it was uploaded here. The New York Times reported back in 2003 that Denis was trying to get the movie distributed [3], so I think it is safe to say that he was not just the writer and director, but is also the owner of the movie.--Chaser (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be sure if I understand you correctly. Denis is claiming that he flicked the shutter of these two photos with a timing device - [4][5] - made his way back to the crowd, and then posed for it? And you accept that as a credible explanation? Given the brazeness of the dissembling here about these photos, I don't believe anything this person says is worthy of belief.ScottyBerg (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think also you need to be aware of the history of socking in this article, and of the indefinite ban of User:Nelsondenis248. Indefinitely banned users have no right to upload photos to Wikipedia, or to participate in deletion discussions. For him to do that and then give a cock-and-bull story about how the photos were taken falls under the category of "unmitigated gall." ScottyBerg (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the two pictures Scottyberg has linked to are not taken with a timing device.[6][7] Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this discussion has indicated that the uploader, the "Taft" account, is the person behind the blocked Nelsondenis248 account (per user name and activity), the legal status of the photo may be moot. The uploaded photos and their addition to the article was in evasion of a permanent block. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for whatever it's worth, Denis said in December 2010 that he was not Taft.--Chaser (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what he says, as the uploader was clearly Denis or someone proxying for him, and Denis (Nelsondenis248) is a permanently blocked user. I really wish you'd appreciate that this is not a good-faith contributor, and that his statements have no credibility. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as being as black and white as you do. Also, you're conflating blocks and bans. A ban would apply to someone uploading photos on another's behalf. A block would not. Whether Taft is Denis, I express no opinion. I've said all I know about that issue.--Chaser (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any difference. Blocked users can't create new accounts to upload photos or place them in articles, or use library computers, as this one has, to evade his block. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photos were improperly removed without consensus or review. Accordingly they have been restored, pending proper review. Administrators please take note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Will anything stop you from evading your ban? ScottyBerg (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The same photos (including this one) have been improperly deleted by ScottyBerg two times, in the past few hours. Please do not do this a THIRD time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's fairly standard to remove photos that are questionable in terms of their nonfree status. But in this case the photos were added in evasion of an indefinite block. By the same token, a person is not supposed to evade a permanent block by going to the library and editing Wikipedia from there. Of course, you know that. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:65.88.88.200 has just been blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248 ScottyBerg (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've striked out the posts by the sock, and also deleted the photos from the article because they were put there in evasion of a permanent block. NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg was obviously not taken with a self-timer (it's either a tight close-up or taken with a telephoto lens). Given the socking and the dissembling we have no obligation to assume good faith in a situation like this, or to come up with an alternate explanation ("a friend took the picture") when the one he gives is obviously a lie. It looks to me like a professional photograph; I've seen book jacket photos that aren't as good. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is partly in response to my post to ScottyBerg's talk page, so I'll just say here that we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your follow-up.--Chaser (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have any special insight to offer, but if the subject of this photo claims to be the copyright holder and gives us appropriate permission, don't we usually accept those claims at face value without looking the gift horse too closely in the mouth? The story about using a shutter timer to take the photo is patently absurd (you aren't going to create something of this quality like that), and I think that some of the user's other uploads like File:NDENIS PHOTO -2.jpg (obviously a newspaper clipping) are much more questionable, but a promo photo provided by the subject? I'd be loathe to refuse those. Now that said, are we sure that the person corresponding with OTRS is the subject of the photo? From looking at his article, it seems like he's a politician and a shutter timer function seems like such a ridiculous thing for him to jeopardize his career by lying about. --B (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to others on whether this portrait is too well done to be self-taken. My point was that it would generally be possible to do so with a remote shutter or a time delay. I lack the expertise to judge whether the quality of this particular photo is too good to be self-taken.--Chaser (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the photo and view the full-sized version. See how his face is perfectly in focus, but as you move back, it gets out of focus? For instance, the hairs on his right ear (his right, our left) are out of focus. This is a very high end lens and in order to be in focus, there's only a margin of error of about 2-3 inches. There is no possible way that he clicked the button, ran to the spot, lined up exactly where he needed to be within 2-3 inches, and struck the perfect pose, all without someone else there. That's simply absurd. --B (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:WALDEMAR KAZANECKI FACE PICTURE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• sourced as "created by uploader", however metadata shows this is a scan of a non-sourced image; without the source it is not possible to determine actual (c) status Skier Dude (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:C cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: there is no evidence the PD-Japan licence is valid because the source page has a clearly copyright notice at the bottom right of the page. ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (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 as F4 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eve no jikan cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: there is no evidence the PD-Japan licence is valid because the source page given has a clearly copyright notice at the bottom right of the page though there is no direct link to the image itself. ww2censor (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:5..jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Other uploads from this user have proven to be copyright violations. I suspect the only reason this one hasn't been similarly caught is the unclear filename and lack of description. Still suspicious, and extremely unlikely that uploader holds copyright. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a small thumbnail copy of this same image is used as a profile pic on the subject's own flickr page [8]. This flickr account is also the source of at least one prior copyvio upload by this editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 9 June 2011 (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 as F3 by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander—Coat of arms of Sir Andrew Harclay, The Earl of Carlisle—2011.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• http://heraldist.blogspot.com/2011/05/permission-licensing-agreement.html does not appear to be what we need and the img is not curial for the article. Mtking (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The author of the images has given permission to use the images with basically a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial license. While this license is no longer a choice when uploading images, it certainly is enough to upload the images under fair use. Fair use does not require the author give any such permission whatsoever, mind you. And the image is good, no reason to not use it, especially if the author has given permission to use it on sites like Wikipedia. Dave Pritchard (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#F3.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reonkadena.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a video capture uploaded by an editor who has been warned about uploading non-free images before. Highly unlikely to be the uploader's own work. --DAJF (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Durbin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a publicity shot. No evidence it is the work of the uploader as claimed. Eeekster (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the exif data it appears to be a scan from printed material. Eeekster (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1) This image seems to be from the same publicity shoot that is shown as being a Fox copyrighted image in post #28 here, [9]. 2) The date of the image is shown as being the upload date and not the date the photo was taken, and if in the same photo shoot as the image above it was from before March 21, 2011. 3)The uploader lists the author as being "Angela S." and yet at File talk:James Durbin.jpg they use a twitter account and a facebook account registered to "Lee Lour." Aspects (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2011 (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.