Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 9
July 9
[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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Small image size and lack of data makes it likely this image was taken from a website. Polly (Parrot) 00:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A promotional hi res image, no evidence the uploader is the copyright holder. Polly (Parrot) 00:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source listed states - All content Copyright the Kabir Project 2003-2009 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Derivate work of commercial product. Maybe resolution could be decreased and a fair use rationale could be written. User:Nillerdk (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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, now has fair-use rationale. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Derived from non-free image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[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⚡ 02:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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, de minimis. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeming fair use claim - but tagged PD self - Does FOP apply to offical insignia? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The logo is de minimis and is not sufficiently complex for copyright anyway. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took this photo myself back 2008. Free use, no copyright violation as it is in the public domain.Defiant15E (talk) 09:36, July 10, 2009 (UTC)
- 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 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a photograph of another work. No indication the uploader owns the rights to the original image. J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject was only born just over a hundred years ago, and is middle aged in this image. Could not have been created by someone who died over 100 years ago. J Milburn (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Mistaken Licensing added on my part. Have updated with the correct Licensing. For the photo was taken by the United Kingdom Government taken prior to 1 June 1957, hence in the public domain.Cossde (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a corporate logo. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was taken fewer than 100 years ago, so there's no way the author can have been dead 100 years. J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See - http://www.eternalwaterheater.com/terms-of-use/ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same reasons as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Technology05.jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of a webpage. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web resolution shot, no meta-data. I suspect this image has been taken from elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. If the image accurately represents a coat of arms, then it is fair use. If the image was entirely self-made, then I can't see any real use of it on Wikipedia. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A coat of arms. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this file. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I created the image, do I not therefore own the rights to it? Many thanks Em500 (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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.
Kept; de minimis/not passing threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logo design? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is de minimis in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a publicity shot, somehow I doubt the source website is the copyright holder. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this is own work. It looks like a publicity shot- empty plain, low res, no meta-data, and the user was originally uploading similar photos as the work of someone else. J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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: kept new version uploaded. Skier Dude (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artwork - No FOP in France Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked if i could take a shoot of the outside for wikipedia the answer was yes while for the inside i was a definitively no. I going to ask the French project about how the mambo jumbo is to be handled --KrebMarkt 19:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got some explanations & re-upload a non-controversial image of the same thing.
- Comment: Your use of abbreviation is not very helpful for non-initiated user. --KrebMarkt 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, just a wall and branding matter, ineligible per Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be inclined to keep, it's only text. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, now that the image has been changed. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not meta-data, came in a batch that look like publicity shots. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Press conference picture- source is blog...No indication it's uploaders photo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot - No Way is this self! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader/Author mismatch Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not PD-Self if US army authored - which is also doubtful given the link Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have no clue what makes a free image which is why i let you guys decide. Username 1 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Global Security is definitely not affiliated in any way with the US government, so at best it would be Fair Use, but it wouldn't even qualify for that, because it's easily replaceable. Also relevant are File:M1A0(top).gif and File:M1A2(top).gif, which are also illustrations uploaded from GS. Parsecboy (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Keep - just now i found a tricky way to make it legal>Username 1 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, now you've made a derivative work. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author/Uploader mismatch - Not Self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: uploader cannot own the copyright of this movie poster which is an unused orphan image ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.