Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 16
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
September 16
[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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:41GXD7P50AL AA240 .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unused. Appears to be an album cover. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:38, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unused image - licensed via pd-self but states "This photo is the property of Debbie Levin." Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:42, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Julian Baggini.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photograph clearly taken from author's website. OTRS would be required. J Milburn (talk) 01:42, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploaded seemingly by the subject of the photo. Professional looking head shot, uploader states "i own the rights to this photo." An OTRS might be in order with more details. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:47, 16 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:404-hype.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Blatant Spam CSD denied, admin removed text. Image is unused and the images page was being used to promote the band and this album. (see dif) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Wrong Website. File are hosted at Wikimedia Commons; Non-admin closure by User:Soundvisions1
- Looking for some help here. User:Zotmeister contacted me and asked me to solve a problem using my admin abilities, but I don't think I can. It's a bit complicated, so bear with me. Zotmeister created File:Masyu.png with his copyrights intact. User:Life of Riley (who seems completely well intentioned) created File:Masyu_puzzle.svg—which is the same content—and released it into the public domain with himself as the author. Zotmeister wants the ownership of this file to be attributed to him, and his copyrights to remain his—or failing that, to have the files deleted. This also seems to have affected the versions on the German wikipedia. How does this get fixed?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of these images are hosted at Wikipedia, they are at Wikimedia Commons so this queston needs to be asked there. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:A61b.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- A crop of a publicity photo. Uploader sates they took this image. NOTE: I thought this looked familiar. Photographer is Gered Mankowitz and I had talked to him in the past about his image of the Arrows that had been placed on Wikipedia by a user claiming they took that image as well. Gered is not active here nor has he ever released any image to anyone for "free" use. This is a blatant copvio. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 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.
- 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 Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the name of this file is a clear claim of own work, the original version had a non-free-promotional license tag; the cc-by-sa-2.0 tag was added by an IP address some time later. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Speedy Delete - copyvio. Source is February 11th, 2009 press release. This was uploaded here May 16, 2010. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Numb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be an album cover, no indication that the uploader owns the copyright. — ξxplicit 09:15, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AMMHJHS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unused high school student ID card. Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:32, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2D poster artwork - PUI Refferal as nor sure FoP applied Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But is it art? {{trademark}} required here for the logo most likely, but UK copyright probably doesn't cover this. Schedule 4 includes "buildings, photographs, engravings and works of artistic craftsmanship" and this isn't any of those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 29 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a reproduction from a newspaper image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same again. {{trademark}} required here for the logo most likely, but UK copyright probably doesn't cover this. Schedule 4 includes "buildings, photographs, engravings and works of artistic craftsmanship" and this isn't any of those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Cut and paste stupidness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:08, 29 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Abl1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unused live photo of the singer of a band called "a beautiful lotus", summary says the image was "created and edited by a beautiful lotus". Most likely orphaned by deletion of A beautiful lotus on the same day the image was uploaded. (October 10, 2006) Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:14, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Promotional image from company whose name appears in the image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 16 September 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.
- 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: File does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Joyce A Bender.ext (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Bender image that we took Benderwiki (talk) 12:37, 16 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Promotional image - Skeptical about self claim given that tineye gave at least 12 matches for various non wiki sites Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:39, 16 September 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.
- 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.
Now changed to non-free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Promotional image- skeptical as to self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:45, 16 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Map or plan- Skeptical about self claim without more information Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:58, 16 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Promotional image ? Skeptical of slef claim given previous uploads Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:02, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Devon-Tower-09-15-2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Can't find a link between the uploader and the blog mentioned - More infomation needed to support self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:30, 16 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Cursed one reissue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Album cover? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:37, 16 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Cursed one.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Album cover? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader Aquilachrysaetos (talk · contribs) is likely not the author. I refer to their other uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has the appearance of a staged State Dept propaganda shot, but who knows? There are undoubtedly free images of Elbrick to be had as a search of arcweb will show, meeting Nixon for example. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 29 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Xanthe Elbrick.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Uploader Aquilachrysaetos (talk · contribs) is likely not the author, I refer to their other uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 16 September 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.
- 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. Licensed under {{PD-text}}. — ξxplicit 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BOM tracker.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Clearly organisational logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:32, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:HTC-Desire-HD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Screenshot Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 16 September 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.
- 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. Licensed under {{PD-text}}. — ξxplicit 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Msds author.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Clearly organisational logo - Didn't apparently list when tagged the first time Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:43, 16 September 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.
- 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. Licensed under {{PD-text}}. — ξxplicit 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Actio regulator.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Clearly logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:36, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:GCI Logo without text.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo, uploader is probably not the copyright holder. Acather96 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 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.
- 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: Closed. Image is not taged as non-free. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SeymourMagoon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- No way to know if it is a booking photo and if it is really Seymour Magoon. It was uploaded by someone to find-a-grave with no verification. Oh boy my danny boy (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Oh boy my danny boy[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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:08, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:XM12 and XM2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Looks like a promotional photo that may have been released by the company, unlikely uploader is copyright holder. Acather96 (talk) 17:51, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kaganovich-Lazar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- A Soviet official portrait taken in 1930 should still fall under current Russian copyright law as well as U.S. copyright law. Copyright does not transfer to the person who owns the photo but rather is retained by the original photographer or, in this case, the official copyright holder (The Soviet State, currently represented by the government of Russia). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Official state photos are not in the public domain? That's news to me. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be, but if it is, then it's tagged wrong. You cannot release an image threw Creative Commons if you don't own it. However, if it falls under exempt from copyright protection under the Russian law this is the tag you need, {{PD-RU-exempt}}. However, I'm not so sure it applies per the tag text.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to contest the challenge, Russian copyright law is alien to me. The USSR wasn't part of the international copyright convention in the 1930s; now somehow public portraits are retroactively placed under copyright of the Russian government? Hmmmm. Whatever... I yield to the judgment of others on this matter. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was a corporate work it would be PD if published any time in the 30s, but some evidence is needed to show this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 29 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm reading this correctly, the description says it's a magazine cover. Therefore it can’t be a {{PD-self}} image. Addationally, not that it changed things, I owould guess that this image was only used on the now deleted page of Abandon chip!. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:27, 16 September 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.
- 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: marked nsd - we need a source to properly determine the license. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:ColEvansFreakeLYStandS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unless User:GriffMJ actually took this photo himself, he cannot claim {{PD-self}}. Since this image is of Lt.Col.The Hon. Percy Cecil Evans-Freke who fought in the Battle of Frezenberg in 1915, I doubt it. It is possible that this image could be {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-old}}, but the real author's name and death date is missing. Works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since their creation" - See 17 USC 302. Since we know Lt.Col.The Hon. Percy Cecil Evans-Freke was alive in 1915 (95 years) there is still a possibility that this image is unfree, unless User:GriffMJ supplies more information. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are *no* US copyright renewals for works with "Leicester Yeomanry" in the title. The likelihood is that this picture was published in one of those, and most probably Codrington's An outline of the history of the Leicestershire (Prince Albert's Own) Yeomanry (1928). With no renewal, that work is in the public domain and so are the post-WWII regimental histories. If published prior to 1923 anywhere - such as a newspaper, although this seems unlikely if you look at other versions of the image, which are like book illustrations with non-newspaper style caption - it is also in the public domain in the US. If Crown Copyright, i.e. official, it is in the public domain even if never published. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:25, 30 September 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.
- 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Image0-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photographing a copyrighted object dose not create a new copyright that user:Cplrcemerat can release. This coin is copyrighted by the Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After going to the only page this item is on. I discovered that the coin is from the Canadian Forces. I don't know if there is a Canadian version of the US government tag {{PD-USGov}}. If there is than it may apply.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Canadian Crown Copyright is for 50 years following creation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 29 September 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.
- 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photographic reproductions of art objects do not release the original copyright. This is a photograph of a painting. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:17, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Drealm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This appears to be part of the HALO game, but I’m not sure. In any case, I have doubts to the copyright ownership of the up loader. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:32, 16 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Grouppicture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- It is highly unlikely the up loader user:Majorbta took this took this school photo. More then likely a photography studio of some kind took it like most school photos --ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:40, 16 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IR-unmasteredcd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Clearly an album label. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:51, 16 September 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.
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TNr cover painting 144.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is an album cover. No source- unlikely uploader is copyright holder --ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:38, 16 September 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.
- 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 but marked nsd. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Babe Dye.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. Unless user:Nhl4hamilton took this photo c. 1925, {{PD-self}} dose not apply.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, unlikely that this is {{PD-Self}}, we can be sure that it is {{PD-Canada}} as it must have been created slightly before the 1949 cut off date. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 29 September 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.
- 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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Charles Upfold.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unless user:Christchurch Somehow personally took this photo prior to 14 March 1919 (date of death of Charles Upfold), {{pd-self}} dose not apply. Copyright claim is highly in doubt.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but this is another one that could have been fixed without sending it here. Nothing stopped you adding {{PD-Australia}} to this (subject looks older than 26 here to me). Or if you supposed that it was taken at a younger age, and didn't want to assume corporate or unknown authorship, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} maybe? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 29 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Top1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Clearly a logo for a school - Not self as claimed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2D sign - Not sure if FoP applicable Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think {{trademark}} is required here for the logo most likely, but UK copyright probably doesn't cover this. Schedule 4 includes "buildings, photographs, engravings and works of artistic craftsmanship" and this isn't any of those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 29 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2D sign - Not sure if FoP applicable Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have asked if I wasn't sure before nominating so many. {{trademark}} required here for the logo most likely, but UK copyright probably doesn't cover this. Schedule 4 includes "buildings, photographs, engravings and works of artistic craftsmanship" and this isn't any of those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 29 September 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.
- 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. I'm pretty sure de minimis applies here as well. — ξxplicit 01:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2D Sign -> Not sure FoP applicable Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- UK copyright probably doesn't cover this. Schedule 4 includes "buildings, photographs, engravings and works of artistic craftsmanship" and this isn't any of those. {{trademark}} needed though for the logo. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 29 September 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.
- 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. The logos likely do not meet the threshold of originality, and the text is illegible (i.e., de minimis). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2D sign - > Not sure FoP applicable Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ho hum: {{trademark}} required here for the logo most likely, but UK copyright probably doesn't cover this. Schedule 4 includes "buildings, photographs, engravings and works of artistic craftsmanship" and this isn't any of those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 29 September 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.
- 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. See above, text is still de minimis. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2D Sign -> Not sure FoP applicable Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bored yet? {{trademark}} required here for the logo most likely, but UK copyright probably doesn't cover this. Schedule 4 includes "buildings, photographs, engravings and works of artistic craftsmanship" and this isn't any of those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 29 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:St-James-3 02.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo for a school - Skeptical as to this being self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:12, 16 September 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Spungbebsquirepants.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Possibly derivative image in poor taste.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:18, 16 September 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.