Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 27

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

January 27[edit]

File:Collage Milano.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can buy that the stitched-together image was created by the author claiming to release it into the public domain, but the images that form it are (I feel) unlikely to come from the same source, and it seems like somebody has taken some (probably copyrighted) images and just used paint. As of yet, I've been unable to find the source of the original files. Ironholds (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is hosted on Commons. I've nominated it over there. J Milburn (talk) 14:01, 27 January 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:Tucson Seal.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tucson Seal.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Why would the federal government produce a city's seal? Eeekster (talk) 00:23, 27 January 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:Turkey Creek Canyon, AZ.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⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turkey Creek Canyon, AZ.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:2008cfcyfcilc.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008cfcyfcilc.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:Eternal lands screenshot 1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eternal lands screenshot 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Screenshot of a video game. Possible copyrighted, judging by the relevant article. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-free see license --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:11, 28 January 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:Eternal lands character creation screen.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eternal lands character creation screen.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Screenshot of a video game. Possible copyrighted, judging by the relevant article. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-free see license --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:11, 28 January 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:Echelon 3 domes.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Echelon 3 domes.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:André Rocha da Silva.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:André Rocha da Silva.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:DallasSkyline1.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: kept, because it seems to check out. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DallasSkyline1.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:Ghetto0012.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⚡ 03:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghetto0012.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:Ghetto0019.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⚡ 03:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghetto0019.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:Turtlecreek0003.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turtlecreek0003.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:Hollow0004.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hollow0004.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:GavinHeffernanin2007.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⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GavinHeffernanin2007.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:Hale.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hale.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:Seth Errol Sofia Derrick.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⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seth Errol Sofia Derrick.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:Seth shostak.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⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seth shostak.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:The Calling - Mark di Suvero.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 Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Calling - Mark di Suvero.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:Peter Sellars.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⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Sellars.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:Anita 1.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⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anita 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Doing a google search of the alleged author's name along with his contributions to wikipedia, I doubt he is the original photographer of this image. He is an information technology specialist based in Iran and most likely has never been in the same room as the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:28, 27 January 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:Chidiac3.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chidiac3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • claimed as PD but has a channel 10 logo on it. I'd say that this is a TV screen capture Peripitus (Talk) 10:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a basically identical image was uploaded as File:Mega2.png and deleted in 2007 by FT2 with the note "Image uploaded for salted page, no longer needed. See [2]" - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac for the history behind this version. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:59, 1 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:RichardPilkington.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⚡ 03:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RichardPilkington.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Copyright notice says "I created this work entirely by myself.", The image is a photograph of Richard Pilkington (1908–1976), so it at least 34 years old; but the man in the picture looks about 40 years old, and if so the photo would have been taken in about 1948. My understanding of copyright is that an image from the 1940s is still in copyright, and while it is possible that the photographer 60 years ago is the editor who uploaded the image, this seems unlikely. It would be helpful if the uploader could clarify the source of the photo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is likely a PD photo (under Crown copyright, the image is very likely PD), but without evidence to the contrary (i.e. a source), we need to consider that it might not be free. It is possible that this is a family photo cropped or a yearbook photo out of publication or an official photo. This person is deceased, however, and another photo cannot be taken, so a valid FUR could be developed. In either case, it is a keep. We just need more information and place a valid FUR and/or tag on the image.
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:Andrew-de-rothschild.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 as G3 by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrew-de-rothschild.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • This picture appears to be part of an elaborate hoax see Andrew de Rothschild. This is backed up by a hoax website. Therefore it is unclear who this is a picture of and what its copyright status is. Polargeo (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website does look like a hoax. I think it's unlikely that a company claiming have billions of dollars worth of assets would have a website with no telephone number or postal address, and whois says that the domain is registered through namecheap.com, which doesn't sound very bluechip. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 27 January 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:2424032544 288b2e2b24.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⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2424032544 288b2e2b24.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Orphaned image from 2008 not utilized within any current article or user space. Concerns that copyrighted watermark is not addressed ,as there is no indication that the editor is Martyn Doherty, retains the copyright to image, or is Martyn Doherty in the image Calmer Waters 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic without any context. — BQZip01 — talk 18:53, 9 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:1932 ramp.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⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1932 ramp.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:A1B9FF63.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⚡ 03:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:A1B9FF63.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Was listed previously on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 2 but was never resolved. After Midnight 0001 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...for now Given the uploader's edit history, they very well could be the copyright holder of the image, but we need verification. If verification cannot be made, we need to delete the image as it clearly has been published after photos are automatically PD. — BQZip01 — talk 18:58, 9 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:Brightcove-holder.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, Solution Offered. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brightcove-holder.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:Chch1986.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: Keep, Solution Offered. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chch1986.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Was tagged previously for Category:Possibly unfree files from 2009 September 11 but was never listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 11. After Midnight 0001 23:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed back again, IP removed the discussion.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blast! Sorry, I usually try to do a better job of watchlisting those PUF subpages when I post stuff, for just this reason. Anyway, I believe the original reasoning still stands - there's probably too much originality there to qualify as PD-textlogo or anything like that, so it needs to be tagged as non-free and only used in such cases where its use can be justified. As I submit that there is nowhere a rationale would make sense, the image should still be deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlapping colored circles is not original as anyone can make overlapping colored circles, on Wikimedia Commons I found some overlapping colored circles that some people made: File:CirclesN4b.GIF, File:Venn diagram for additive RG color.svg, and File:Circle diagram1.png. Powergate92Talk 06:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would with Powergate that there's nothing orignal about overlapping colour circles. I don't see how overlapping circles are considered orignal especially when such a logo can easily be recreated with the appropriate tools.  єmarsee  • Speak up!
  • Even if it is possible that this logo could be recreated, isn't it obvious that this is most likely a screen-shot and that the screen-shot should be tagged as a non-free image? If it is legitimate to argue that the design is not original enough (and I don't know that you can do that, but just to straw-man), wouldn't someone be required to make a duplicate of it with some drawing program and post that file as a potentially free image? --After Midnight 0001 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. And even then, if it were copyrighted, it would remain copyrighted. If not, it would remain so. A reproduction would retain all protections of the original.
  • Keep A simple Venn diagram-like drawing of circles does not equate to originality, especially when it is a reproduction of a color wheel. It is not original in its design and, therefore, is not eligible for copyright. — BQZip01 — talk 04:23, 6 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:Wangchenrinpoche.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⚡ 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wangchenrinpoche.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Delete when I tagged this image as having no licence, the uploader added a {{PD-self}} copyright tag and removed the upload summary that stated: "This photo was provided by Wangchen Rinpoche's secretary Eydie Dolma." Either this image is copyright and was supplied to the uploader but there was no evidence of any permission, or it was taken by the uploader in the first place, which clearly seems contrary to the original upload summary.
  • Delete Per above. Summary seems bogus. However, I would also ask the uploader to contact the owner and see if the image could be released under a compatible license. Please contact me on my talk page for assistance. — BQZip01 — talk 19:01, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_January_27&oldid=1138572007"