Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
February 10[edit]
File:Mona Lisa Brookshire.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mona Lisa Brookshire.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image is a book or magazine cover. Uploader is unlikely to have the rights. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:46, 10 February 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.
File:Newlife smalllogo.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Newlife smalllogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image is a logo, unlikely that the uploader owns the rights. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:53, 10 February 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.
File:Swami Premashananda01.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Swami Premashananda01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Considering the uploader's other files (all of which have been tagged for copyright problems), I have no reason to believe that this is actually this person's work and in the public domain. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:58, 10 February 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.
File:Romanholiday.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Romanholiday.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be a promotional image, no indication that the uploader owns the copyright. — ξxplicit 04:40, 10 February 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.
File:Melanie Lynskey LA Film Festival (2).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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploaded provide a website [1] when it was uploaded, and although I can't find the exact image there, there are several similar images that were obviously taken at the same time. Uploader is no longer active, but I would question the reason for giving the URL if the image did not originate from there. Rossrs (talk) 05:05, 10 February 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.
File:Fernando Cassia.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 discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Fernando Cassia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Comment - The image is licensed under CC-BY-SA, and I believe the upholder could easily hold the rights to it, judging by the image. How is the photo copyrighted? Can you be more specific? Also, while the subject may be of questionable notability, how is the image unencyclopedic if it's serving to illustrate the article? Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. I see nothing to suggest that the image is a copyvio. — BQZip01 — talk 04:42, 19 February 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.
File:Särestöniemi ant.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Särestöniemi ant.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- 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:Reserva Spanish wine label.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 discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Label of the bottle is artistic and copyrighted. MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While it seems that a new copyright rule pops up every day, I tend to look to Commons for a rough idea of what is acceptable. Over there we have entire categories dedicated to images of wine labels just like this. So I'm not sure why this type of image is acceptable over at Commons, with its much more rigid copyright standards, but questionable on enwiki? AgneCheese/Wine 22:52, 10 February 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.
File:Yubnub small.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Yubnub small.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- 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:Slm2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Slm2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Doubt this is free and/or that Flickruser is copyright holder. MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 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.
File:MrT head.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:MrT head.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- No source on Flickr. Doubt Flickr user took the image self. If Flickr user is not copyrightholder then license is not valid. MGA73 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 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.
File:57635031 25ae6f0642 o d.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Derivate work. I doubt Flickr user is the copyright holder of this. MGA73 (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're saying that the photograph is a derivative work of the copyrighted content, or that this photograph itself is copyrighted and this version is a derivative work? I think the former would fall under de minimis provisions, while the latter would need corroboration. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:56, 11 February 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.
File:Buffalostatue.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Buffalostatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Buffalo statue at Buffalo Bill museum in Colorado. No FOP in US. MGA73 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 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.
File:RusselGhoori.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:RusselGhoori.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This image is clearly edited from other sources (one of which, I'm pretty sure, is File:Planets2008.jpg), but it contains no information on what those source images were. Perey (talk) 20:30, 10 February 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.
File:Paasikivi statue.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Paasikivi statue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor Harry Kivijärvi still living. A333 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Pictures of works of art permanently located in public places can be used non-commercially or as illustrations to texts in newspapers and periodicals" wikipedia is non-commercial if i recal correctly ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.83.162 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 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.
File:BloodyMarshMap.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BloodyMarshMap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This seems a photograph of an outdoor map at Bloody Marsh. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is a photograph of an outdoor map at the site. I took the photo. I believe that there is no copyright violation - there is no copyright notice on the map. At the time it was created, a copyright notice was required if copyright was to be claimed. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it is a US National Park, so it is the work of the National Park Service, a US Government agency, so it is free to use. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight correction: it is not actually a National Park, but it is a historic site owned by the US National Park Service. (The people at Fort Frederica National Monument maintain it.) I added PD-USGov to the image's page, so keep. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per all of the above — BQZip01 — talk 04:44, 19 February 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.
File:600px Viola e Bianco con Uccelli Rossi.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be a logo, which by definition can never be free. Blueboy96 23:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically this image is not a Kyoto Sanga's logo, but it uses some of its elements. AFAIK, the copyright appears to the entire logo, with shield, football and text on it. —WiJG? 05:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The parts that have been "borrowed" are pretty unique (the "art" in the middle). I find it unlikely that it just happens to look like the logo. --MGA73 (talk) 12:00, 16 February 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.