Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 November 14

keep it. there's naked people lolz

< November 13	November 15 >

November 14[edit]

Image:Cannabis_sativa_extract.png[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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work, original date unknown but seems likely to be post-1923. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:21, 14 November 2007 (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.

Image:FoxJumpingDog1.PNG[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 I8 by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author stated that "Word's built-in clipart" has been used. _→AzaToth 19:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't all clipart, by definition, PD? Rocket000 (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Copyrighted unless stated otherwise, as with anything else. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree: even if it's not PD as such, it would certainly be licensed for a Word user to create works with.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 02:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is most likely in violation. Reading Microsoft's FAQs, you see that the uses they permit are mostly "personal, noncommercial" uses and for school, etc. Wikipedia, being a non-profit, may be a case they would allow, but the image could not be published under the terms of the GFDL allowing others to re-use it, so it would have to be treated like a copyrighted, non-free image if it were to stay at all. Copyright -> Clip art: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/permissions/default.mspx#E4 and FAQ about MS copyrights http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/permissions/faq.mspx TheBilly (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I agree, this should be deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator and I see this discussion about my image. I will admit that I created it, put the creative energy into it, and release the whole picture under free, unrestricted use. As soon as possible, I will check the status of the clip art in the images, and if there are copyright issues, I will provide another picture with different clipart that is not Microsoft-Related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.55.245 (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I am the author of this file, have read this post, and reviewed the Microsoft Terms and Conditions as linked to by the previous user. Due to the concern that my image raises over coypright status, I have replaced the image with another image that does not use the Microsoft Clipart library. (Only the fox and the dog were Microsft's clip art, the scenery and background was my own work to begin with). Again, I hereby release this work into the public domain GDFL license, with no restrictions on usage whatsoever. I have replaced the file with a new file of the same name. This change should clear up the copyright concern of this image. I hope you are able to enjoy it as much as the original one. Brandenads 9:37 27 November 2007.

1st upload has been deleted. 2nd does not have same issues as #1. SkierRMH (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2007 (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.

Image:Basic human anatomy labeled.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be too many conditions on the use of this image. It says :- Attribution must appear super-imposed on the image itself, fully legible when at the full published resolution. In addition, if published digitally outside of WikiMedia, a link to www.3DScience.com via the image must also be provided. Image must be attributed to Zygote Media Group. Snowman 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can require all that under the CC-BY. It contradictory. Commons also has this up for deletion here. Rocket000 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please dont delet it its good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2007 (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.

Image:Cours-julien.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 I9 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as GFDL. No mention of this in the source. Rette tast 22:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website source cited on the image page does not appear to have any copyright notices. --Mathsci 00:28, 15 November 2007 (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.

Image:Pavillon-vendome.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 I9 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as GFDL. No evidence of this in the source. Rette tast 22:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source website in the image file does not seem to have any copyright notices attached. --Mathsci 00:25, 15 November 2007 (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.

Image:Vendome-detail.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 I9 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as GFDL. No evidence of this in the source. Rette tast 22:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website source cited on the image page does not appear to have any copyright notices. --Mathsci 00:27, 15 November 2007 (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.

Image:Jongkind.gif[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 I9 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as GFDL. No evidence of this in the source. Rette tast 22:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this image notto be deleted. I wish I could have done so myself. It is orphaned. --Mathsci 00:23, 15 November 2007 (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.

Image:JasdeBouffan.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 I9 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as GFDL. No evidence of this in the source. Rette tast 22:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website source cited on the image page does not appear to have any copyright notices. --Mathsci 00:27, 15 November 2007 (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.

Image:Lego Loco.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 discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be a non-free screenshot as a derivative work. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I don't know why it was listed as it was all my own work. Anyway I have provided a new fair use rationale that explains why the image meets fair use. Xtreme racer 00:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:13, 25 February 2012 (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.