Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 26 September 28 >

September 27[edit]

File:Ngbbs472f70a339649pl4.gif[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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⚡ 03:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is clearly not the creator. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 01:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, uploader is not the copyright holder of Kermit the Frog. Image is a non-free orphan; I support speedy deletion if another admin should reach the same conclusion. Infrogmation (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:Newshour.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV logo - no evidence uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:AlSmith.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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. No evidence that this has fallen into the public domain, yet. Shell babelfish 18:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rights status not evaluated." per Library of Congress description page. [1] "Not all images displayed in this catalog are in the public domain." No reason why this should be public domain offered by uploader. Infrogmation (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is from 1923, it is old. Poor Al Smith can catch a break on Wikipedia.--Tilden76 (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Old, but alas a year shy of being PD-US unless other information (such as confirmation of non renewal of copyright) can be provided. There are several photos of Smith on Commons confirmed to be free licensed. Infrogmation (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:Gerhard von Rad1.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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⚡ 09:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this image is public domain as claimed, because Gerhard von Rad died in 1971, and he looks quite old in this photo. —SpaceFlight89 04:24, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:Artists impression.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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⚡ 09:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the work of Costco and not the uploader, The lower res file was at http://www.costco.com.au/Auburn/20090701a.jpg (A cache of a web forum which also used the image from Costco) Bidgee (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:ValerianFreyberg1999.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

scan of a painting (dated 1999) credited to U. K. Reunov, uploaded by User:Rodolph with Creative Commons license - no evidence of permission. Memphisto (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC) THis picture has all necessary permissionsRodolph (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2009 (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.


why was this image deleted? WHo are the vandals and time wasters?Rodolph (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo of Lil Rob.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Mfield (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a scanned/captured image from an album cover, tineye found this image: [2] No evidence of permission given. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:19, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:MS-13 Tattoo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Mfield (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tineye search shows multiple versions of this image, no evidence of permission. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:20, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:Photo of Proper Dos group.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Mfield (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A previous revision of this image shows an http://elvolo.com tag, no evidence of permission. Original located here — raeky (talk | edits) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:Photo of Downtown Los Angeles, California.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Mfield (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tineye search shows a couple EXTREMELY similar (exact angle, exact position, exactly same except for color tweaking and this image being slightly compressed horizontally). — raeky (talk | edits) 16:23, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:STI airport diagram2008.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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⚡ 09:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has had many of his uploads deleted due to them being clear copyright infringements despite claiming they are his own work. I strongly suspect that this image like others has been taken from a website with no evidence of permission. The uploaders comments "Woun [sic] work.. posted by IDAC/MDST (Cibao Airport)" seems to imply this. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:52, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:CHCH ONTV.svg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 unclear. I have no idea what the Right Thing is here, so let's err on the side of caution. I'll change this from {{pd-textlogo}} to {{Non-free logo}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tagged as PD-textlogo, I'd suggest that this logo shows enough originality to cross the threshold (compare, for example, File:McDonald's Corporate Logo.svg). Also, the original version of this logo (File:CHCH-ON-TV.png) is clearly tagged as non-free. The source of this "simpler" version is also not shown. Black Kite 17:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the logo has overlapping typefaces doe's not make it copyrighted. If overlapping typefaces could be copyrighted then this logo would be copyrighted but has you can see that logo is public domain. Powergate92Talk 18:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one is clearly more complex than that. I would suggest a suitable comparison is File:EBay Logo.svg - non-free. Black Kite 18:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PNG version was never the orignal. See [3], [4], [5], and [6]. This shows the SVG version was used before the PNG version.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going on Powergate's point there. Neither would this qualify for PD going by your definition there. єmarsee  • Speak up! 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that it doesn't. Black Kite 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot worse considered to be in public domain than the onTV logo. Maybe a trip back in time to Expo 86 or a nice baseball game with the San Fran Giants?  єmarsee  • Speak up! 18:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say both of those are either OK, or certainly more OK than the ones we're discussing here. They are simply text items of the same colour placed on top of each other, with no attempt to add artistic interpretation to them, unlike the ASU or Ebay ones. Black Kite 18:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, IMO the Expo 86 logo is certainly more complicated than the onTV logo, but it doesn't mean it's not in public domain though. Just because a part of the red "n" is covered by the the white "o" doesn't make it orignal. I'm not sure if your opinions of logos have changed in the weeks I've last had a discussion with you, but you've suggested that the overlapping circle CHCH logo qualifies for PD, but why wouldn't this qualify for PD? єmarsee  • Speak up! 18:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was close, but I wasn't sure - I think this one is further away though. Black Kite 19:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree that this logo is more complicated than the CHCH coloured circles logo. There's only three colours on the onTV logo, red, black and white. There's eight colours on the CHCH circles logo, with light green, blue, magenta, red, orange, yellow, white and black. Both of the logos features overlapping features. MCQ seemed to agree that the CHCH circles logo was in public domain, so I suggest bring this logo over to MCQ too. єmarsee  • Speak up! 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sounds fair enough to me. It's a shame there's no clearer definition of PD-text, isn't it? Black Kite 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion about the ASU logo where it was decided that the logo is public domain. Powergate92Talk 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That linked discussion was mainly about the Akron one (which I agree was PD-text). I'm wondering why ZScout370 restored the ASU one as well - odd. I've asked him. Black Kite 19:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:EBay Logo.svg was tag with Template:PD-textlogo but was retag with Template:Non-free logo by User:MBisanz with no edit summary of why he retag it. Powergate92Talk 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he was reverting to its original state - it had been changed from non-free to textlogo by an IP editor. From the edit history, I suspect there had been a discussion about whether it was non-free or not, but where that discussion was, I don't know - possibly at Commons. Black Kite 18:47, 27 September 2009 (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.


File:Extio set finance.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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⚡ 07:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination, an IP user struck out the template and posted a dispute notice on the image page itself, listing here instead. Original message:

Sherool (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has recently been replaced in it's use by a remade free vector File:Remote_graphics_unit.svg so it's also unused. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:17, 27 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_September_27&oldid=1208423148"