Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < January 29 | January 31 > |
|---|
January 30[edit]
File:Anita-raj.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⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Anita-raj.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Studio style photo. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:28, 30 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:TibetanWomen,ButterChurn.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⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Photo of a photo on display. Copyright status remains with the original. If the original photo is public domain or free licensed, fine, but if so, info on the original photograph needs to be added and the license changed. If the original photo is not free licensed or public domain, this copy cannot be either. Infrogmation (talk) 04:49, 30 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:PandL.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⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PandL.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:21, 30 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:InfectionStill.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⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:InfectionStill.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be a screenshot from a non-free film. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:21, 30 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:Blinder01.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⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Blinder01.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be a screenshot from a non-free film. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:21, 30 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:MarshalStill.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⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:MarshalStill.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be a screenshot from a non-free film. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:21, 30 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:DelfStillSm.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⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:DelfStillSm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be a screenshot from a non-free film. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:22, 30 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:Detial COlo-new-new.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⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Detial COlo-new-new.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Detailed diagram of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons suggested by nominator. The image is an architectural drawing, and appears to have been ripped from a website as the top left-hand corner contains the line "Please register to remove this text". Furthermore, the uploader has a history of uploading images under a PD licence without properly establishing that he or she is the copyright holder (see "User talk:Dacial" – the other images have been speedily deleted). In fact, "Detial COlo-new-new.jpg" is very similar to the other architectural drawings "File:Interior COlo-new-new.jpg" and "File:Grotto Entrence-new-new.jpg" that have already been deleted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:31, 30 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:Anne Hathaway Havoc Pictures.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 Tikiwont (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reason this image is non-free Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, showing nipple of BLP subject. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found image on webpage, marked for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, showing nipple of BLP subject. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:24, 30 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:Plan Bodham Castle.svg[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 F9 by Nev1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Plan Bodham Castle.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Author seems to have relicensed the file without actually being the copyright holder. Martinor (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See User_talk:Nev1#Bodiam_castle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinor (talk • contribs) 14:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The plan itself is of an ancient castle, and in turn is thought to be a copy of a 1920 plan. The copyright of the plan which I traced is dubious, if indeed it had any. Obviously the layout of the castle isn't copyrighted and as such it's unlikely that a plan of it would be copyrighted too. It seems to be very much of a grey area. It's an image that is important to the article so it would be detrimental to the article if it were to be deleted. At the very least hold off the deletion and we can figure out a possible FUR. Failing that I'll just have to go back and alter it enough that I am entitled to a copyright on it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinor (talk • contribs) 00:23, 31 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:Screenshot of bash.org.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Screenshot of bash.org.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- As the owner of this website, I request deletion of this image. It does not meet any NFCC requirement, as it does not appear in a mainspace article, and. I also note that the file is uploaded as PD, however the copyright notice is clearly identified in the image and can not be released as PD material from the uploader. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:51, 30 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:Rasharkin Orange Hall 24 Aug 09.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⚡ 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Questionable source; the quoted website only holds a low-res version of this image. No evidence the high-res image is released under the same licence. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 30 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:Robert Donat.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 by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Robert Donat.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- 39 Steps copyright renewed in 1994 when Pres. Clinton signed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and it is not in public domain as user states. See this link for more info. Copana2002 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Change the copyright and add a FUR. — BQZip01 — talk 04:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note after closure: replaced by File:Robert Donat.jpg Buffs (talk) 21:34, 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.
File:Chiltern Class165026 West Ruislip.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⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright statement on the source site - http://www.the-siding.co.uk/welcome.php#copyright - seems pretty clear that this image is not free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:58, 30 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.