Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 9

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⚡ 04:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source and no evidence that copyright holder has released this. Ecosse99 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it says "aerial photo" but clearly this was shot from the ground Wisdomwiki (talk) 17:13, 9 June 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⚡ 04:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source and no evidence that copyright holder has released this. Ecosse99 (talk) 01:38, 9 June 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⚡ 04:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source and no evidence that copyright holder has released this. Ecosse99 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 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⚡ 04:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User does not claim to be copyright holder. No evidence that copyright holder has released this. Ecosse99 (talk) 05:42, 9 June 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⚡ 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a screencap of this flash file, which is in itself a derivation of video games featuring characters from the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure franchise. I do not believe it can be released into the public domain as it has been, nor do I believe it can be exempt from copyright.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:25, 9 June 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: Not deleted. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct image containing protected design elements Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like what? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Underground Roundel in particular, prepared to accept threshold of originality arguments here. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The design elements are protected by trademark, not copyright (much too simple for that). IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 12 June 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 ESkog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low res, no meta-data. I suspect this was taken from elsewhere without permission. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a crop from here. I've speedied. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:47, 9 June 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: 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⚡ 14:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reason Ed morrison (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this has been deleted. The image is, as I actually said, ENTIRELY my own. I own it, it's mine, no one else has any rights to it whatsoever. WIKIPEDIA, YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION! Where's the problem?!

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 Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image listed as CC-by-3.0 but the linked flickr page states "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic" which is not a free licence as we require commercial use to be allowed. Peripitus (Talk) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, whats the easiest way to keep it then? Should I mail the guy on Flickr and ask him to change the license? Wisdomwiki (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - either that or get him to send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating clearly that they agree to release it under the commercial licence - Peripitus (Talk) 08:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr doesn't have cc3.0 licences. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 11 June 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⚡ 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of several images uploaded by First Holdings, whose other uploads were originally sourced to a variety of organizations, and then when called into question mass-tagged them as PD and "freedom of panorama", which doesn't even make sense. The original source of this image is not given, but I would presume that it is also a copyright violation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:03, 9 June 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⚡ 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of several images uploaded by First Holdings, whose other uploads were originally sourced to a variety of organizations, and then when called into question mass-tagged them as PD and "freedom of panorama", which doesn't even make sense. The original source of this image is not given, but I would presume that it is also a copyright violation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:04, 9 June 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⚡ 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of several images uploaded by First Holdings, whose other uploads were originally sourced to a variety of organizations, and then when called into question mass-tagged them as PD and "freedom of panorama", which doesn't even make sense. The original source of this image is not given, but I would presume that it is also a copyright violation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:04, 9 June 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⚡ 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of several images uploaded by First Holdings, whose other uploads were originally sourced to a variety of organizations, and then when called into question mass-tagged them as PD and "freedom of panorama", which doesn't even make sense. The original source of this image is not given, but I would presume that it is also a copyright violation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume so too Wisdomwiki (talk) 17:11, 9 June 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⚡ 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as uploader's own work, but looks like an official photograph of some sort. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's the official photographer of some sort :-) Wisdomwiki (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, in most cases I'm familiar with, the official photographer for an organization typically does not hold the rights to photos made on the job. We'd still need some sort of statement of permission from the copyright holder. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:48, 9 June 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⚡ 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an official photo; unlikely (but admittedly, within the realm of possibility) uploader created this work 53 years ago. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole talk page of the user is full of unfree warnings. Maybe just delete the account? Wisdomwiki (talk) 17:10, 9 June 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⚡ 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence the cited source releases its images under the indicated multi-licensing arragement. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:21, 9 June 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.