Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 7

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, no source, if legit logo uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this image a while back when I had no idea about copyright tags. This image is no longer needed as I later uploaded File:ABB Grain Limited logo.png which has the necessary licensing information. Feel free to delete. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:07, 7 April 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 as G7 by Gadfium (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, no source, if legit logo uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 04:44, 7 April 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 Bjweeks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a typo, but at the moment the rationale contradicts the public domain tag. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 11:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I'm sorry I did not know better in 2006, when I uploaded the file. I think actually you should have followed MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Possibly_unfree_images: RupertMillard (Talk) 11:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the only problem with an image is that the uploader claims that a third-party has released the image under a free license or into the public domain but there is no verification of the release (either by a website notice or an OTRS ticket), please tag the image as {{subst:npd|name of source}}, rather than listing it here.

I will forward my correspondence with Dockwise to OTRS, but Dockwise did not complete a Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#Declaration of consent for all enquiries so it might end up that the image is deleted, which would be a pity but understandable. At any point did it occur to anybody to offer to help me sort this out rather than list things here and there and delete images? RupertMillard (Talk) 11:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I forwarded my correspondence with Dockwise to OTRS. Am waiting to hear back. RupertMillard (Talk) 15:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by OTRS. Implied acceptance of permissions is not acceptable. RupertMillard (Talk) 08:28, 9 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stretched version of http://www.flickr.com/photos/berniemack/374133832/ Hence, there is no proof of ownership of the uploader anyway. Xeltran (talk) 12:58, 7 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

States "not permitted to use for other purpose than showcase", therefore non-GFDL. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 14:59, 7 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No GFDL at source. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:01, 7 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No CC at source. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:07, 7 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No metadata, and appears to be part of a professional photo shoot. Unlikely that uploader is the copyright holder. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit by the uploader, I submit that "unlikely" is an extremely mild term to use. Apparent copyvio, even though I was unable to locate and exact match.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 8 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source provided, just claimed to be made by Philippine Army personnel without a proof. Thus doubtable public domain status. DavidDCM (talk) 19:37, 7 April 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 Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the content shown inside is GPL. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is taken from Lifehacker.com. They state that "all original material is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported"; the image upload pages claims GFDL. They didn't even attribute the source of the image. Radiant chains (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No as in, the program is GPL, but the stuff shown on that screen (logos, videos. ViperSnake151  Talk  11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, as in the the Last.fm logo, movie covers, etc. Radiant chains (talk) 19:03, 8 April 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.